PDA

View Full Version : Is it time for Mike Shanahan to go?


Pages : 1 [2]

Popps
05-01-2008, 01:17 PM
You're looking at all the negatives and none of the upside. We drafted 3 DL last season.


In short, there is plenty of reason for optimism.

Well, the post you're responding to was somewhat tongue in cheek. (Somewhat not.)

That said, you can go through and try to justify each move he's made this off-season, and I'm as hopeful as you are. But, you have to admit that this off-season smells exactly like every other off-season over the past decade. Weird draft picks, cast-off D-linemen, attempts to "outsmart" the free agent market and no big-name help for either side of the ball. Look, I love the Robertson move.... but given our history with these kinds of guesses, it's not logical to assume this will work out. Hopeful? Sure.

Our few good off-seasons over that decade have involved moving up and taking a guy like Cutler.... trading for Bailey, signing Lynch, etc. In other words, the less Shanahan tries to outsmart the universe, the better he does. The guy spent GOBS of draft picks and GOBS of free agent money trying to find a starting cornerback. He finally quit trying to outsmart everyone, and just traded for Champ.... and it worked.

Thus far, this looks like Shanahan's usual attempt to outsmart himself. (Taking a novelty midget receiver at #42 in the draft with massive holes on both lines.)

I'm hopeful. I hope the team improves. But, anyone who makes the case that we're GOING to improve because of this weird off-season we've had is just wishing. Shanahan has provided no basis for ASSUMING he knows what he's doing in free agency in the draft, outside of a good first couple of seasons.

Again, be hopeful. I am, too. Just don't confuse that with being logical.

TonyR
05-01-2008, 01:27 PM
Well said, Popps. I think you're spot on.

Tombstone RJ
05-01-2008, 01:40 PM
Terrible analogy...not even worth analyzing

What you are pulling is totally a cop out. I'm not the one calling for Shanny's head and even I thought out a few options that would be worth discussing.

I have never said that we have to stick with Shanny because there are no other options. What I have said and and am saying, is that Shanahan is a damn good coach, and if he is to be let go, it best be with a replacement strategy in mind because good NLF coaches aren't exactly crawling out of the woodwork.

I hear a lot of spoiled fans crying that they had to suffer through a losing season or that they haven't been to a Super Bowl in 10 years like they have any idea how bad sports doughts can get. I'm open to discussing Shanahan leaving, but not with someone who can't see past their nose enough to even entertain some alternatives.

Find someone!!! (jumping up and down with fist pumped and eyes squeezed shut)...

Don't be naive...it's not that simple....

You are very correct in that it's not easy to find a ligit NFL caliber winning coach who has the resume of Shanahan, and is available.

However, that does not mean it's a task that Bowlen can't do, esp. if he hires a good GM to help him find that coach.

Sometimes you have to gamble a little to find a young, up and coming coaching talent and give that guy a shot. Sometimes it works (Mike Shanahan, Jon Gruden, Bill Cowher, Tony Dungy, etc.) and sometimes it doesn't (Steve Mariuchi, Bobby Patrino, Steve Spurrier, etc.) but that doesn't mean you don't try.

Heck, even Shanahan had to get a chance to be a HC (see list above) before we found out just how good he is.

Or, sometimes you go with a veteran HC and see where he can take the team (Bill Bilicheck, Bill Parcells, Mike Holmgren, Tom Coughlin, etc.). Point being, you try.

What you don't do is stay with the same-ole, same-ole because your scared to make a move.

jonny1
05-01-2008, 01:48 PM
Thus far, this looks like Shanahan's usual attempt to outsmart himself. (Taking a novelty midget receiver at #42 in the draft with massive holes on both lines.)

For one thing, Royal is NOT a novelty midget receiver. Deseaun Jackson is a novelty midget. Royal is not tall, true, but he bench presses more than most of the lineman at the combine, and has the potential to be a slot receiver in this league for a long time.

And if you don't think the special teams needed some help, your head is DEEP in the sand.

Plus, they took two OL, signed a vet, traded for a DT, and drafted 3 DL and an OL last year. What more do you want them to do?

Plus, by all accounts, all the players drafted this year are high-quality guys that love the game and are hard workers. Sounds like the Colts/Patriots blueprint, but that approach takes time.

This team is gradually being built with a larger and larger core of young and hopefully talented players.

People all the time used to complain about Shanahan going for the quick fix by overpaying for free agents. Now he's NOT doing that, so therefore, he's not doing enough.

Mindboggling . . . .

Broncomutt
05-01-2008, 01:53 PM
Great posts Popps!

BroncoInferno
05-01-2008, 02:26 PM
That said, you can go through and try to justify each move he's made this off-season, and I'm as hopeful as you are. But, you have to admit that this off-season smells exactly like every other off-season over the past decade.

Actually, not at all. Where Shanny has gotten into trouble is throwing money at guys like IHOP and even last offseason when he spent a ton on Henry, Graham, etc. He has always tended to do better with low key signings of unspectacular but solid guy. That is exactly what he did this offseason. No big splashes, but guys like McCree, Robertson and Bailey have been solid contributors (if unspectacular) in this league and will help us.

Weird draft picks

You are going to have to explain this one. Every pick attempted to address a need this team had. Clady fills a need at OT. Royal fills a need with our woeful return game (and if you don't think field position cost us at least a couple of games last season I don't know what to tell you). Lichensteiger fills the need for interior depth and gives us a potential replacement for Nalen. Williams is a special teams dynamo and provides depth at CB where Paymah and Foxworth could be gone after the season. Denver always take a RB late, and Torain is a talented guy who fits the system. Powell is run stuffing specialist (one of the best in the country) who can help in the rotation. Larsen was a productive guy who can maybe help at MLB if Niko flops. Hillis is a true fullback with great hands, something we haven't had in awhile. Barrnet could provide depth at safety if he makes the team. What about any of these picks is "weird" or is not logical. You just don't like the specific guys? Who should we have taken? Certainly, not all of these guys will pan out, but they are logical selections.

cast-off D-linemen

Robertson has underachieved relative to being picked #4 overall and his salary, but he has averaged right around 50 tackles and 3 sacks per season. That's fairly solid and much better than what we've had.

attempts to "outsmart" the free agent market and no big-name help for either side of the ball.

Again, the "big name" route is where the failures have come. Look at all the big signings last offseason and what the result was. The low key approach has always served him better. What big moves did we make prior to '05? We brought in the Cleveland DL for which we were laughed at and they helped get us to the AFCCG (yes, they were poor pass rushers and did not work out long term, but they were very stout versus the run).

Look, I love the Robertson move.... but given our history with these kinds of guesses, it's not logical to assume this will work out. Hopeful? Sure.

Actually, it isn't logical at all to use other individuals and say, "well, IHOP failed so it's logical to think Robertson won't work out, too." Huh? Again, Robertson puts up pretty consistent numbers and I don't see any reason to think he won't give us similar results.

Our few good off-seasons over that decade have involved moving up and taking a guy like Cutler.... trading for Bailey, signing Lynch, etc.

Actually, you've pretty much named the only three "big splash" moves he's tried to make that have worked. For the most part, those attempts failed.

In other words, the less Shanahan tries to outsmart the universe, the better he does.

No, when he restrains himself and doesn't go for quick fixes with big names, he's done better.

The guy spent GOBS of draft picks and GOBS of free agent money trying to find a starting cornerback. He finally quit trying to outsmart everyone, and just traded for Champ.... and it worked.

OK. So, we should just sign big names to big contracts every time we have a need? There is a little thing called the salary cap that makes that kinda difficult. Plus, truly elite guys like Champ almost never hit the market. You can't have a star at every position. You need guys like McCree and Bailey to fill out a roster.

Thus far, this looks like Shanahan's usual attempt to outsmart himself. (Taking a novelty midget receiver at #42 in the draft with massive holes on both lines.)

We spent the last two drafts addressing the lines. 4 DL selections and 3 OL. What more do you want them to do? Should they just assume most of those guys will fail and keep drafting guys while ignoring other areas?

I'm hopeful. I hope the team improves. But, anyone who makes the case that we're GOING to improve because of this weird off-season we've had is just wishing. Shanahan has provided no basis for ASSUMING he knows what he's doing in free agency in the draft, outside of a good first couple of seasons.

Well, the "weird" offseason stuff is your opinion, and frankly not a very valid one. Your whole argument seems to be that we didn't go out and throw money at a big name, so that's "weird." The moves themselves makes sense based on our needs and what the history of FA has shown to be the more successful strategy overall. Teams typically have disappointing results when they start throwing money all over the place. Take a look at the Skins and 2007 Broncos as prime examples. The Seahawks spent a lot of $$$ too and didn't get what they were looking for in '07.

Again, be hopeful. I am, too. Just don't confuse that with being logical.

Actually, it's more illogical to think we won't improve with all the talented young players we have coupled with the return of key guys who were injured and the additions of the offseason. How much will we improve? That's the question in my mind.

TheReverend
05-01-2008, 03:36 PM
I hope you're right, but I've got to ask... count your chickens before they hatch much? You're awfully bold in your statement of being "HIGHLY competitive in 2008 and back to perennial post-season contenion" without much to back it up. This team has a LOT of questions to answer before one can rationally and objectively make such a statement. Here's a primer:
1) defensive line
2) linebacker, particularly MLB
3) safety
4) Brandon Marshall's health
5) kicker (remember Jason Elam?)
6) punter
7) offensive line, particularly the health and effectiveness of Hamilton and Nalen, and the effectiveness of rookie Ryan Clady
8) special teams (particularly kick and punt coverage)

Just want to mention this... last year those questions were MUCH more volatile than they are this season (kicker/punter aside), and with a little more discipline, that team was in the playoffs.

Merlin
05-01-2008, 05:43 PM
Well, talk to me son...
You are going to have be a lot more insightful, introspective and wiser before you can call me son.

As I stated, my posts were directed to the blowhards criticizing Shanny's coaching from a position of total ignorance. Are you such a total egomaniac that all posts must also address your takes and mistakes?

However, Shanahan, the de facto GM leaves alot to be desired.... However, Shanahan VP of Football Operations, has hamstrung Shanahan, the coach. Now, who's fault is that?
Do you see me (or anyone else for that matter) defending some of Shanny's past boneheaded mistakes? But now that you want to make blanket statements and overgeneralizations, I guess I could briefly stroke your ego and address some of your poor insights. If you consider many of Shanny's choices in players, and his coaches preferences, it is clear that Shanny has made many choices based on their desires.

Now you may argue that Shanny is still the top guy, so he must address this problems, and you would be right. How do you address them? Get rid of the coaches and get better help. Now Mr Sund-full-of-himself has apparently had a good hand in some of our past mistakes in drafting and free agents, Shanny began to cut his power and listen more to other members of his staff. The outcome? Every draft in the past THREE years has many positives, and very few negatives (and btw, one of the worst negatives came as a result of his greatest coach...do I need to explain that or do you have enough understanding to interpret?).

So, what is Shanny's answer, he gets rid of Mr Sun-full-of-&$it (who btw, was recommended by Bowlen, not Shanny), and gives even more power to the scouts responsible for the last couple of drafts. Moreover, he brings in a number of players with prior experience in areas of need, who have performed well in the past, but hit bumps in the past couple of years. The bumps may due to factors other than the players, and the players are all fairly young and cheap. Moreover, the draft is directed to players in areas of need, and they have all performed extremely well in the areas that pertain to Denver's style of play and need.

So, Shanny's FO (yes, it includes a number of people besides himself) has performed poorly in the past, but all facts point to a time period over 3 years ago, why would I want his GM head now that he is directing the ship in the right direction?

Lastly, I didn't see you own up to your insights and make the bet. It is quite simple. People like you are certain we are falling apart at the seems. So there is no way we will equal last yrs record because we are going DOWN because of Shanny's incompetence as a GM. So, are you will to STFU once the team is playing 500 avg or better, and to disappear from the mane the minute the team wins 8 games next yr? According to your powerful insights it is an impossibility, so you have nothing to lose. Once you win not only is your over-sized ego (address-me-I-need-attention) be stroked, but the likes of me will extol the virtues of your wisdom and football knowledge before we take our ignorant carcass out of the mane. So, where are your cojones?

Bronco Jamus
05-01-2008, 05:59 PM
Well, the post you're responding to was somewhat tongue in cheek. (Somewhat not.)

That said, you can go through and try to justify each move he's made this off-season, and I'm as hopeful as you are. But, you have to admit that this off-season smells exactly like every other off-season over the past decade. Weird draft picks, cast-off D-linemen, attempts to "outsmart" the free agent market and no big-name help for either side of the ball. Look, I love the Robertson move.... but given our history with these kinds of guesses, it's not logical to assume this will work out. Hopeful? Sure.

Our few good off-seasons over that decade have involved moving up and taking a guy like Cutler.... trading for Bailey, signing Lynch, etc. In other words, the less Shanahan tries to outsmart the universe, the better he does. The guy spent GOBS of draft picks and GOBS of free agent money trying to find a starting cornerback. He finally quit trying to outsmart everyone, and just traded for Champ.... and it worked.

Thus far, this looks like Shanahan's usual attempt to outsmart himself. (Taking a novelty midget receiver at #42 in the draft with massive holes on both lines.)

I'm hopeful. I hope the team improves. But, anyone who makes the case that we're GOING to improve because of this weird off-season we've had is just wishing. Shanahan has provided no basis for ASSUMING he knows what he's doing in free agency in the draft, outside of a good first couple of seasons.

Again, be hopeful. I am, too. Just don't confuse that with being logical.

It's like you just don't ever know what you are talking about with regard to this team.

Drek
05-01-2008, 06:06 PM
That said, you can go through and try to justify each move he's made this off-season, and I'm as hopeful as you are. But, you have to admit that this off-season smells exactly like every other off-season over the past decade.

I don't get how you see this at all.

Typical Shanahan off-season:
- Overpay for over the hill "name" help at need positions on defense.

- Invest draft picks in athletes with little proven football skills and questionable character/work ethic/health.

- Use bargain bin answers to address the OL.


This off-season:
- Bring in younger players with some tread left, and the guys at two key positions are lunch pail type workers (Niko and Robertson).

- Draft guys who have proven themselves productive at our need positions while in college and are highly motivated worker types.

- Draft OL with our first pick, the highest 1st rounder we've had without trading in years.

There was no breaking the bank in FA, no selling out our second day wealth of picks to move up after one boom/bust prospect. No non-productive athlete type that we're supposed to believe we'll suddenly turn into a football player.

Overall I'd say we pretty much entirely bucked our previous trend. It might not produce results but it is a very different off-season approach.

wolf754life
05-01-2008, 06:10 PM
Ok, its settled, we now know what needs to happen.

Time/Date : To Be Determined
Event: Smoker, pro shannahan maners vs Anti Shannahan maners

We could do this for charity, I'm thinking 5 bouts, based on height and weight........

Shannahan could even be there signing autographs and takin pictures. Cheese vendors could sponsor it, the Rat and all his Cheese!

Pat Bowlen would love it, anything with the name "Shannahan" on it must be good for the broncos, ie............Dale Carters contract, or Daryl Gardner.

Good times for all, since the broncos are an explosive team ready to break out! Devin Hester might show up too, since he heard Shannahan still wants to punt to him!

Oh, one more thing, I want the Reverend, knockout in the 2nd round!!!

TheReverend
05-01-2008, 06:15 PM
Ok, its settled, we now know what needs to happen.

Time/Date : To Be Determined
Event: Smoker, pro shannahan maners vs Anti Shannahan maners

We could do this for charity, I'm thinking 5 bouts, based on height and weight........

Shannahan could even be there signing autographs and takin pictures. Cheese vendors could sponsor it, the Rat and all his Cheese!

Pat Bowlen would love it, anything with the name "Shannahan" on it must be good for the broncos, ie............Dale Carters contract, or Daryl Gardner.

Good times for all, since the broncos are an explosive team ready to break out! Devin Hester might show up too, since he heard Shannahan still wants to punt to him!

Oh, one more thing, I want the Reverend, knockout in the 2nd round!!!

I'd be very game for that.

Kaylore
05-01-2008, 06:16 PM
(Taking a novelty midget receiver at #42 in the draft with massive holes on both lines.)
Um we drafted a Center/Guard this year and a Tackle in the first round. We traded for a defensive tackle and drafted another one late. We have three draft picks from last year for the defensive line. You think we need to do more? Ok, I guess. But be specific. You have a bad habit of ripping on what the organization does and never saying what they should have done instead. You wanted them to fire Coyer, but then offered no alternative to who should replace him. It's easy to poo-poo every move this team makes. Why not sack up and suggest alternatives?

Popps, I want you to go on record and list the ten other guys we should have taken with the Royal pick.

Odysseus
05-01-2008, 06:20 PM
Ok, its settled, we now know what needs to happen.

Time/Date : To Be Determined
Event: Smoker, pro shannahan maners vs Anti Shannahan maners

We could do this for charity, I'm thinking 5 bouts, based on height and weight........

Shannahan could even be there signing autographs and takin pictures. Cheese vendors could sponsor it, the Rat and all his Cheese!

Pat Bowlen would love it, anything with the name "Shannahan" on it must be good for the broncos, ie............Dale Carters contract, or Daryl Gardner.

Good times for all, since the broncos are an explosive team ready to break out! Devin Hester might show up too, since he heard Shannahan still wants to punt to him!

Oh, one more thing, I want the Reverend, knockout in the 2nd round!!!

It would be funnier than the three stooges.

cmhargrove
05-01-2008, 06:22 PM
"Katnip approves of Shanahan as HC, end of story."

Odysseus
05-01-2008, 06:36 PM
You are very correct in that it's not easy to find a ligit NFL caliber winning coach who has the resume of Shanahan, and is available.

However, that does not mean it's a task that Bowlen can't do, esp. if he hires a good GM to help him find that coach.

Sometimes you have to gamble a little to find a young, up and coming coaching talent and give that guy a shot. Sometimes it works (Mike Shanahan, Jon Gruden, Bill Cowher, Tony Dungy, etc.) and sometimes it doesn't (Steve Mariuchi, Bobby Patrino, Steve Spurrier, etc.) but that doesn't mean you don't try.

Heck, even Shanahan had to get a chance to be a HC (see list above) before we found out just how good he is.

Or, sometimes you go with a veteran HC and see where he can take the team (Bill Bilicheck, Bill Parcells, Mike Holmgren, Tom Coughlin, etc.). Point being, you try.

What you don't do is stay with the same-ole, same-ole because your scared to make a move.

I wouldn't sell out one the best coaches in the NFL because I wasn't happy. One of the greatest assets that the Broncos have is stability. Players come to play here because of that.

Bates came. Bates went. Rhodes came. Rhodes went. Gruden was a wonder boy Raider coach. I have not heard his name mentioned in months.

The point being this draft is different. This team IS trying!

elsid13
05-01-2008, 07:51 PM
It would be funnier than the three stooges.

Actually sound like something freaking Raider fans would think up.

theAPAOps5
05-01-2008, 08:01 PM
Ok, its settled, we now know what needs to happen.

Time/Date : To Be Determined
Event: Smoker, pro shannahan maners vs Anti Shannahan maners

We could do this for charity, I'm thinking 5 bouts, based on height and weight........

Shannahan could even be there signing autographs and takin pictures. Cheese vendors could sponsor it, the Rat and all his Cheese!

Pat Bowlen would love it, anything with the name "Shannahan" on it must be good for the broncos, ie............Dale Carters contract, or Daryl Gardner.

Good times for all, since the broncos are an explosive team ready to break out! Devin Hester might show up too, since he heard Shannahan still wants to punt to him!

Oh, one more thing, I want the Reverend, knockout in the 2nd round!!!

What are you one those freaky S and M guys. Do you like being beat and have your ass kicked.

Northman
05-01-2008, 08:12 PM
What are you one those freaky S and M guys. Do you like being beat and have your ass kicked.


Wolf's nightlife looks a lot like this.

http://fartfly.com/bring-out-the-gimp.jpg

Popps
05-01-2008, 09:09 PM
A
Again, the "big name" route is where the failures have come. Look at all the big signings last offseason and what the result was. .

Well, since we only signed one big game guy (Graham)... I'm not sure what you're talking about. Did we sign Terrell Ownes and I missed it? If you think Travis Henry's well-traveled arse is a big name, we disagree on the definition.
Same for Bly, though he came in a trade... and I've said before that Shanahan does relatively well in trades.

The only myth bigger than "Denver's great linebackers" is this absolute fantasy that we've gone after big-name players. That's a total joke. Bailey was the last big name we brought in.

Instead, we have a continual train of crappy Browns cast-offs, old injured guys, late round picks and practice squad goofballs.... and before any of the resident football geniuses tell me about how you have to fill a roster with lower picks and get value in free agency, I get it.

I also get that when you choose not to pay up for a guy like Kearney (Pro Bowl) you get stuck with a guy like Engleberger. (Poop on stick.)

When you ask people to come up with examples to support the myth of Denver signing big-name free agents, you get examples like.... Darryl Gardener, Javon Walker and Travis Henry. Again, we may consider those "big names" in Denver, but the rest of the planet considers them tier 2 guys with question marks.

So, let's put to rest the idea that we've been "burned by big name signings."

We've got exactly three guys on our team worth a ****, and two of them were big-names before coming to Denver.

Tombstone RJ
05-01-2008, 09:15 PM
You are going to have be a lot more insightful, introspective and wiser before you can call me son

Ok, son.:wiggle: In all seriousness, I was using the phrase "Well, talk to me son..." as an expression to illicit a reponse. It seems to have worked. But, I apologize if I insulted you.

As I stated, my posts were directed to the blowhards criticizing Shanny's coaching from a position of total ignorance. Are you such a total egomaniac that all posts must also address your takes and mistakes?

Egomaniac! EGOMANIAC!! Hell yes I'm an egomaniac!! But, what "mistakes" have I made that you are referring to?


Do you see me (or anyone else for that matter) defending some of Shanny's past boneheaded mistakes? But now that you want to make blanket statements and overgeneralizations, I guess I could briefly stroke your ego and address some of your poor insights. If you consider many of Shanny's choices in players, and his coaches preferences, it is clear that Shanny has made many choices based on their desires.

Please, show me where I made a "blanket" statement and made "overgeneralizations" about Shanahan. My main contention has been that Shanahan has not been a good player-personell manager and that his lack of ability in this field has left the team lacking in overall talent. Also, since he has been the de facto GM and overall leader of this franchise, only answering to Bowlen himself, he has managed to keep the team in relative mediocrity. Going 10-6 and then getting biatch-slapped in the playoffs is not what a true SB contendar does. Shanahan has managed to win one playoff game in the last 7 years. As a fan, yes, I have a problem with this.

Now you may argue that Shanny is still the top guy, so he must address this problems, and you would be right. How do you address them? Get rid of the coaches and get better help. Now Mr Sund-full-of-himself has apparently had a good hand in some of our past mistakes in drafting and free agents, Shanny began to cut his power and listen more to other members of his staff. The outcome? Every draft in the past THREE years has many positives, and very few negatives (and btw, one of the worst negatives came as a result of his greatest coach...do I need to explain that or do you have enough understanding to interpret?).

Yep, Sundquist is gone, and like alot of other people here, I don't think that is such a bad thing. Shanahan now has no one else to blame for the teams lack of success. As for the last three drafts, the positives outweighing the negatives is a big assumption on your part. You cannot know how this last draft will effect the team in wins in losses until after next season. As for the 2007 draft, the jury is still out. 2006 looks like it was a good draft, so kudos to Mike.

So, what is Shanny's answer, he gets rid of Mr Sun-full-of-&$it (who btw, was recommended by Bowlen, not Shanny), and gives even more power to the scouts responsible for the last couple of drafts. Moreover, he brings in a number of players with prior experience in areas of need, who have performed well in the past, but hit bumps in the past couple of years. The bumps may due to factors other than the players, and the players are all fairly young and cheap. Moreover, the draft is directed to players in areas of need, and they have all performed extremely well in the areas that pertain to Denver's style of play and need.

I like Shanahan's off season moves this year, they seem to be less glamorous and more pragmatic. But its still too early to know, for certain, how the 2008 draft will pan out for the team. I want this to be a great off season for the Broncos. I too want Shanahan and the Broncos to win another SB, but the proof is in the pudding. However, I hope your right.

So, Shanny's FO (yes, it includes a number of people besides himself) has performed poorly in the past, but all facts point to a time period over 3 years ago, why would I want his GM head now that he is directing the ship in the right direction

As I've stated before, I'll give Shanahan the benefit of the doubt for two more years, but if the team has to win playoff games. Notice I said "games" as in the plural. This is how I will judge his success.

My guess Denver will win 10 games. What would you do then? Commit to NEVER AGAIN, no matter what happens in the future, disseminate ill comments about the FO unless is to talk about their greatness? Yes, you would have to become sickening in your love and support for Shanny, for the rest of his stay here (regardless of whether he stinks later). Any takers? By your own descriptions/assertions Denver has little or any chance of winning 6 next year.

Again, if you look at my posts, I've stated many times that I want Shanahan to succeed, and that I've been a big Shanny supporter for a long, long time. However, what I've also said is that if this team does not get to the playoffs, and win some playoff games by the end of the 2009 season, then Shanahan needs to go. If Denver wins 10 games this coming season and then gets destroyed in the playoffs, what is so great about that? That's been the MO of Shanahan's teams for the last 7-8 years. He's won one playoff game in that time frame. That is sad, if you think about it.

Lastly, I didn't see you own up to your insights and make the bet. It is quite simple. People like you are certain we are falling apart at the seems. So there is no way we will equal last yrs record because we are going DOWN because of Shanny's incompetence as a GM. So, are you will to STFU once the team is playing 500 avg or better, and to disappear from the mane the minute the team wins 8 games next yr? According to your powerful insights it is an impossibility, so you have nothing to lose. Once you win not only is your over-sized ego (address-me-I-need-attention) be stroked, but the likes of me will extol the virtues of your wisdom and football knowledge before we take our ignorant carcass out of the mane. So, where are your cojones?

Now your the one generalizing about my posts. Point is, I don't GAF if the Broncos are over .500 this coming season. I want playoff wins. As for my powerful insights, I have not once prognosticated how many wins this team will get. I've simply stated that I will judge Shanahan by playoff wins, and if he does not have at least a couple of playoff wins by the end of the 2009 season, he should step down or be fired.

Popps
05-01-2008, 09:19 PM
Um we drafted a Center/Guard this year and a Tackle in the first round. We traded for a defensive tackle and drafted another one late. We have three draft picks from last year for the defensive line. You think we need to do more? Ok, I guess. But be specific. .

I was specific. I was actually fairly happy with what we did on the OL, though I'd still grab more help at #42, or trade into a spot where you get value on the line at that pick. But, Shanahan has a Devin Hester fetish and trust me, we won't stop with this kind of return-guy pick until he finds one, now. I hated that ****ing pick, and even if he works out... don't come back and look for me because we'll never know if we could have taken a dominant DL, OL or LB in that spot. 42 if VERY high to be taking novelty picks.

It's easy to poo-poo every move this team makes. Why not sack up and suggest alternatives?
.

Homeboy, you obviously haven't been reading my posts. I've been making suggestions for Y E A R S on this board. Draft, free agency, trades.

d list the ten other guys we should have taken with the Royal pick.

Again, this may be a concept that message-board-guy can't wrap his head around. I don't know. But, it's not my job to find players at positions of need... it's the staff's. According to you, they can do no wrong... yet, we **** up the draft six ways to Sunday every year, not to mention free agency. (For the most part.)

How's this. You need a date Friday night. A girl knocks on your door. She happens to be an HIV-infected serial killer. I suggest that you don't date her.
Are you going to insist on dating her unless I give you an alternative, or is it possible that simply the idea of dating this girl might not be a good one?

Get it? Not knowing your alternative (yet) does not justify doing something stupid.

Get it?

Taking a little kick returner at #42 with massive holes on OL, DL, LB and S is stupid. It's stupid whether or not I know EXACTLY who we should have picked instead.

If we get lucky, and the kid can contribute, that still doesn't mean it wasn't stupid. It just means we made a silly pick and got lucky, but still have bigger need that weren't addressed.

Can you get your head around that?

wabbit
05-01-2008, 09:47 PM
...
Popps, I want you to go on record and list the ten other guys we should have taken with the Royal pick.

I will, although ten seems a bit excessive.

Even one alternative that fills a need equal to a 2nd round Special Teams selection would be petty even if it were valid...but there were many, although, ten?...I'm not sure.

I'm ok with this draft. I wanted to say that because I'm not a scout, or a coach & these gentlemen know exponentially more than I...hell, many of the folks here know much. much more than me about any given draft, or draft choice.

However, some things seem obvious..even painfully so if they seem obvious to me...kinda like the 'all men are created equal' thingy in the Declaration of Independence, so here are a few choices Denver might have made that were available at the time of the selection of Eddie Royal:

If you're looking at DTs, even with the Robertson signing, try Trevor Laws of Notre Dame. How about Pat Simms of Auburn?

Wide receiver is a Bronco question mark even with the FA signings...couldn't hurt to dial up Lima Sweed of Texas, Earl Bennett of Vandy (jay Cutler even campaigned for him) or even in a reach, Early Doucet LSU or, turning a blind eye to..shall we say, social shortcomings...Michigans' Mario Manningham...weed issues & all.

LBs???...we got LBs available at the time of the Broncos selection.

Lets start with Dan Conner...and Inside guy some projected to the first round.

Phillip Wheeler of Georgia Tech is another 'playa'.

...oh, and the scuttlebutt that Minnesota was eyeing Royal??...total crap.

They moved up several spots for a sleeper FS they claim they were desperate not to lose.

I undertsand it's only 8...there were several more, including a couple DEs...but I was dead set against drafting another DE, so I'll try not to be hypercritical.

Is eight enough, or was that just a bad t-v show?

Not attacking you Kaylore...honest.

Just sayin'.

Popps
05-01-2008, 11:07 PM
Great breakdown, Wabbit. What about the kid from Colorado at LB, too? A lot of people were high on him. I never saw him play.

Cito Pelon
05-02-2008, 02:54 AM
There's been talk about Shanny getting canned since Griese went bust. Then it was "Shanny's fate is tied in with Plummer."

Pat Bowlen knows that Mike Shanahan is going to have a bust enshrined in Canton someday. He expects to say some very nice things on that day in front of quite a few of us. In the mean time, who better to gear your team towards your next Superbowl than a Hall of Fame bound coach with Superbowl credentials, and a young stud to develop?

Ya know, back in Feb. 98 it looked like Shanny could be the GOAT being as young as he was. But only one Div Title since then and that the only Title of any kind has not made him look good.

Cito Pelon
05-02-2008, 04:06 AM
Can we all say (alot) has to come together for a team to go the distance it's not just a coach that's just one piece in a huge puzzle and when shanahan had the personnel he went to the big dance or deep into the playoffs so lets be fair when placing blame for subpar seasons lets just think what would have happen had jake plummer not melted down in the AFC championship game (that was out of mikes hands) and had we went to the SB win or lose (THIS THREAD WOULDN'T EVEN BE HERE) point is the stars have to align and it isn't easy.

Sure, it's brutally hard to win League Titles. That's why I start a thread every year, "Name the Titles You Have Won." Mainly the object is to illustrate how rarely it happens. Myself, I never got too devastated when the Broncs were "only" winning AFC Titles. That's a huge accomplishment in itself. Same with winning AFC West Titles. Any Title is a big deal, and the more banners the Broncs have hanging at Mile High, the better I like it. Winning playoff games is a big deal also. So I'm pretty pissed off the Broncos have hoisted only one Title banner at Mile High since 1998, and won only one playoff game since 1998.

BroncoInferno
05-02-2008, 09:04 AM
Well, since we only signed one big game guy (Graham)... I'm not sure what you're talking about. Did we sign Terrell Ownes and I missed it? If you think Travis Henry's well-traveled arse is a big name, we disagree on the definition.

I guess I'm not seeing how Graham is a big name and Henry isn't...but why don't we say "high profile" signings instead. You wouldn't disagree that Henry was a high profile signing, would you?

Same for Bly, though he came in a trade... and I've said before that Shanahan does relatively well in trades.

Agreed.

The only myth bigger than "Denver's great linebackers" is this absolute fantasy that we've gone after big-name players. That's a total joke. Bailey was the last big name we brought in.

Well, how well exactly did the Bailey move turn out. The prior season we had gone 10-6 and gotten embarrassed by Indy in the first round of the playoffs. Shanny decides we've got to beef up the secondary to get over the hump. He trades for Bailey and signs Lynch. The result? 10-6 and a first round thrashing at the hands of the Colts. So, those "big names" really paid dividends, huh? The next offseason we're the laughing stock because we bring in the Cleveland DL and not much else. The result? We have one of the best run Ds in the league and go to the AFCCG. So, it looks to me like to "low key" approach brought results, and the big name approach brought stagnation. The "big name"--or "high profile" if you prefer--approach to last offseason actually resulted in a regression. You silly little formula here is flimsy at best.

Instead, we have a continual train of crappy Browns cast-offs

Who helped get us to the AFCCG. They only worked out for a season, granted, but you cannot deny their solid contribution to the success of '05.

old injured guys

Most of those moves--for example, Sam Adams--were one year deals for not a lot of money. In other words, they were brought in cheap to see if they had anything left. It usually hasn't worked out, but what was lost in the process? If not the old injured guy, it would have been some young modestly talented long shot filling that roster spot.

late round picks and practice squad goofballs

Yeah, those late round losers...Tom Nalen, Ben Hamilton, Brandon Marshall, Elvis Dumervil...what a pack of bums!

and before any of the resident football geniuses tell me about how you have to fill a roster with lower picks and get value in free agency, I get it.

No, you really don't.

I also get that when you choose not to pay up for a guy like Kearney (Pro Bowl) you get stuck with a guy like Engleberger. (Poop on stick.)

People have tried to explain this to you...we offered Kearney more money than Seattle but he picked them because he believed they had a better shot at the Super Bowl. What were we supposed to do...hold him at gun point and make him sign the contract? Keep raising the price until he says "yes", salary cap be damned?

When you ask people to come up with examples to support the myth of Denver signing big-name free agents, you get examples like.... Darryl Gardener, Javon Walker and Travis Henry. Again, we may consider those "big names" in Denver, but the rest of the planet considers them tier 2 guys with question marks.

Well, now your argument is even more ridiculous than I thought. If you have to be on the level of Champ Bailey or John Lynch to qualify as a "big name", then you're damn right we aren't bringing in a lot of those guys. And there are two damn good reasons for it: a little bugaboo called the salary cap and the fact that elite players rarely hit the open market. You really do have a poor vision of how things work if you think it's feasible to just go out and sign a "big name" every time you have a need. it's not practical either logistically or financially--to say nothing about who is actually available.

So, let's put to rest the idea that we've been "burned by big name signings."

We've been burned by the high dollar, high profile approach to be sure. The myth that needs to be put to bed is your fantasy that it's wise to go out throwing money at a big name guy every time you have a need. Ask Washington how that approach has worked out. Hell, name me a team who has had success with the "big name" method. I guess NE made a splash last offseason with Moss and Thomas, but Thomas actually disappointed and Moss came pretty cheap because of a couple of bad seasons in a row.

We've got exactly three guys on our team worth a ****, and two of them were big-names before coming to Denver.

Only three? Well, here's my list:

Bailey
Lynch
Bly
Dumervil
Cutler
Marshall
Graham
Scheffler
Nalen
Hamilton
Stokley

What is your definition of "worth a ****"? Only superstars need apply?

TonyR
05-02-2008, 01:50 PM
Well, how well exactly did the Bailey move turn out. The prior season we had gone 10-6 and gotten embarrassed by Indy in the first round of the playoffs. Shanny decides we've got to beef up the secondary to get over the hump. He trades for Bailey and signs Lynch. The result? 10-6 and a first round thrashing at the hands of the Colts. So, those "big names" really paid dividends, huh? The next offseason we're the laughing stock because we bring in the Cleveland DL and not much else. The result? We have one of the best run Ds in the league and go to the AFCCG. So, it looks to me like to "low key" approach brought results, and the big name approach brought stagnation. The "big name"--or "high profile" if you prefer--approach to last offseason actually resulted in a regression. You silly little formula here is flimsy at best.

Who helped get us to the AFCCG. They only worked out for a season, granted, but you cannot deny their solid contribution to the success of '05.


I can tell you're not a scientist. I'm not either, but I know enough about it to know that your hypotheses here are very weakly supported for lack of variable control. You can't say "Bailey and Lynch didn't work out because the team results were the same with them and without them". Too many other variables (other player additions or subtractions, other players improving or playing poorly, coaching changes, scheme changes, injuries, etc.). You also can't say "the Browncos did work out because the team improved after their addition". Again, too many other variables.

I would suggest that the focus shouldn't be on "big name" or "high profile" vs. less expensive signings but instead on whether or not anybody we bring in is better than the guy they replaced in the lineup and/or whether or not he is more effective in the scheme in which he is being employed.

Odysseus
05-02-2008, 01:56 PM
I will, although ten seems a bit excessive.

Even one alternative that fills a need equal to a 2nd round Special Teams selection would be petty even if it were valid...but there were many, although, ten?...I'm not sure.

I'm ok with this draft. I wanted to say that because I'm not a scout, or a coach & these gentlemen know exponentially more than I...hell, many of the folks here know much. much more than me about any given draft, or draft choice.

However, some things seem obvious..even painfully so if they seem obvious to me...kinda like the 'all men are created equal' thingy in the Declaration of Independence, so here are a few choices Denver might have made that were available at the time of the selection of Eddie Royal:

If you're looking at DTs, even with the Robertson signing, try Trevor Laws of Notre Dame. How about Pat Simms of Auburn?

Wide receiver is a Bronco question mark even with the FA signings...couldn't hurt to dial up Lima Sweed of Texas, Earl Bennett of Vandy (jay Cutler even campaigned for him) or even in a reach, Early Doucet LSU or, turning a blind eye to..shall we say, social shortcomings...Michigans' Mario Manningham...weed issues & all.

LBs???...we got LBs available at the time of the Broncos selection.

Lets start with Dan Conner...and Inside guy some projected to the first round.

Phillip Wheeler of Georgia Tech is another 'playa'.

...oh, and the scuttlebutt that Minnesota was eyeing Royal??...total crap.

They moved up several spots for a sleeper FS they claim they were desperate not to lose.

I undertsand it's only 8...there were several more, including a couple DEs...but I was dead set against drafting another DE, so I'll try not to be hypercritical.

Is eight enough, or was that just a bad t-v show?

Not attacking you Kaylore...honest.

Just sayin'.

Are all these guys good character guys? No disrespect...I'm just curious.
The guys we drafted are all so gosh darn swell. I am pretty sure that we passed on players who might not completely the coaches new intent.

Kaylore
05-02-2008, 02:44 PM
I was specific. I was actually fairly happy with what we did on the OL, though I'd still grab more help at #42, or trade into a spot where you get value on the line at that pick. But, Shanahan has a Devin Hester fetish and trust me, we won't stop with this kind of return-guy pick until he finds one, now. I hated that ****ing pick, and even if he works out... don't come back and look for me because we'll never know if we could have taken a dominant DL, OL or LB in that spot. 42 if VERY high to be taking novelty picks.



Homeboy, you obviously haven't been reading my posts. I've been making suggestions for Y E A R S on this board. Draft, free agency, trades.



Again, this may be a concept that message-board-guy can't wrap his head around. I don't know. But, it's not my job to find players at positions of need... it's the staff's. According to you, they can do no wrong... yet, we **** up the draft six ways to Sunday every year, not to mention free agency. (For the most part.)

How's this. You need a date Friday night. A girl knocks on your door. She happens to be an HIV-infected serial killer. I suggest that you don't date her.
Are you going to insist on dating her unless I give you an alternative, or is it possible that simply the idea of dating this girl might not be a good one?

Get it? Not knowing your alternative (yet) does not justify doing something stupid.

Get it?

Taking a little kick returner at #42 with massive holes on OL, DL, LB and S is stupid. It's stupid whether or not I know EXACTLY who we should have picked instead.

If we get lucky, and the kid can contribute, that still doesn't mean it wasn't stupid. It just means we made a silly pick and got lucky, but still have bigger need that weren't addressed.

Can you get your head around that?
Calm down, Nancy. Making blanket comments about how something sucks and should be "better" is the epitome of...what was it "message-board-guy" behavior you just accused me off. It's like that little kid that hates every movie but won't make suggestions and would prefer to just sit and pout.

You seem to know enough about what we don't need, and yet not enough to know what we do. That's really not all that impressive. At least others on here are willing to step up when they criticize the franchise and say what the alternative should have been. Even Lex, in all his lunacy, was willing to suggest Mendenhall or Stewart and explain why that option would be better.

It just seems really cowardly to generically attack moves the organization makes and say we need a player or person in the abstract. "We need better defensive linemen." What is this nebulous solution, other player or thing, we should have taken/done? To suggest that pick is too high for said player implies there were better options since all prices are relative. And yet you can't name a single one? That's weak sauce.

And I have criticized this team before. This whole "they can do no wrong" thing, where is that from? I wasn't fond of the Tim Crowder selection last year. I had better guys on my list at that slot. What's funny is I wouldn't even entirely disagree with you if you said we should have taken...I don't know... Quentin Groves for example or some other player. I would at least appreciate your point of view and then it would be something we could watch and see throughout the season. Criticizing a move without suggesting alternative is essentially whining. It also makes it easier to be right because even if Royal is awesome, if some other player emerges in later rounds you can beat your drum about how we should have taken that player instead - even though you never mentioned or knew about him at the time you were whining.

Popps
05-02-2008, 03:01 PM
I guess I'm not seeing how Graham is a big name and Henry isn't.

Graham is the best in the business at what he does. (Blocking tight end.) Henry bounces from team to team and is a complete joke.

But, you're right, even to call Graham a big name is a bit of a stretch, giving further support to my theory that our "big name" signings is a fantasy.

I
Well, how well exactly did the Bailey move turn out.

He's the best player on our team, by 2x. I wouldn't take two of any other player we have for him. That's how it turned out. Conversely, we wasted draft pick after draft pick and signed gobs of crappy, cast-off CBs looking to get lucky. He finally got it right when he stopped trying to be cute.

IThe next offseason we're the laughing stock because we bring in the Cleveland DL and not much else. The result? We have one of the best run Ds in the league and go to the AFCCG. So, it looks to me like to "low key" approach brought results, and the big

Our defense was absolutely dismantled in the playoffs, but I'll give you this... the Cleveland cast-offs gave us some production for a season, then fell apart completely.

I
People have tried to explain this to you...we offered Kearney more money than Seattle but he picked them because he believed they had a better shot at the Super Bowl.

Yea, I'm sure the folks on this message board were sitting in on the conference call and know that as fact. Wait, now you're going to tell me that Kerney said this was the case? Yea, a player would never make a statement like that if it wasn't true. :thumbs:

Anyway, there's some excuse like this every year why poor old Denver can't commit to the defensive line. I've been hearing the pity party for the last decade.


Yeah, those late round losers...Tom Nalen, Ben Hamilton, Brandon Marshall, Elvis Dumervil...what a pack of bums!

There's not a single defensive starter on that list.

Beyond that, the idea that we can occasionally find a guy who can play in the late rounds isn't a news flash. I noticed you had to go back 14 years to come up with one example and seven years for another. So, I'm not sure what the point is, here.

You really do have a poor vision of how things work if you think it's feasible to just go out and sign a "big name" every time you have a need. i

Not every time, just once in a decade. How's that? How about ONE time in a TEN year span, we either trade up in the first round or we trade/sign for some real D-line talent. Not EVERY time.... once. Or, god forbid, once in a while. Shanahan had NO problem trading up when he wanted his offensive toys and no problem trading for the league's best CB when he had his CB fetish going on. But, for some reason... it's just a big string of excuses around here as to why this guy refuses to ever take the D-line seriously.
(Pity party continues.)

(I do understand we drafted Moss last year, before anyone reminds me.)


We've been burned by the high dollar, high profile approach to be sure.

Again, a baseless myth with no examples, no foundation and zero factual information to back it up. Just something dudes have repeated on internet message boards until other dudes assume it's true.

Hell, name me a team who has had success with the "big name" method. I guess NE made a splash last offseason with Moss and Thomas, but Thomas actually disappointed and Moss came pretty cheap because of a couple of bad seasons in a row.



Signing "big names" is not what its about. It's about making proper moves when you have the opportunity. New England makes the proper moves. They've signed some small names, some big names and have been highly effective in the draft.

We've done very little of the above, if any.

If you want to fabricate straw-man arguments ("we need to sign all big names").... feel free. That's obviously not what I'm saying.


Only three? Well, here's my list:

Bailey
Lynch
Bly
Dumervil
Cutler
Marshall
Graham
Scheffler
Nalen
Hamilton
Stokley

What is your definition of "worth a ****"? Only superstars need apply?

Bailey and Lynch are studs. Marshall looks like he has a chance if he doesn't screw it up. Nalen and Hamilton were drafted ages ago.
The rest of those guys are somewhere between marginal and nice contributers.

We've got a few decent players. That doesn't detract from the truth, which is that we don't have enough... and that's largely a result of Mike Shanahan's ****-can drafting and ****-can free agent strategy.

TonyR
05-02-2008, 03:25 PM
We've got a few decent players. That doesn't detract from the truth, which is that we don't have enough... and that's largely a result of Mike Shanahan's ****-can drafting and ****-can free agent strategy.

Yep, the draft is the weak link, and this weak link has forced the reaching in free agency. Indy, New England, San Diego, Pittsburgh, and the NYG, are examples of teams that were built primarily through the draft and supplemented here and there with free agents. Indy, San Diego and Pittsburgh in particular rarely do anything in free agency because they really don't need to.

It all starts with the draft. It's the foundation. You're either good and/or lucky at it or you're not. The fact that Denver's roster has among the least, if not the least, team drafted talent tells you how they've fared in the draft.

TheReverend
05-02-2008, 03:26 PM
Graham is the best in the business at what he does. (Blocking tight end.) Henry bounces from team to team and is a complete joke.

But, you're right, even to call Graham a big name is a bit of a stretch, giving further support to my theory that our "big name" signings is a fantasy.



He's the best player on our team, by 2x. I wouldn't take two of any other player we have for him. That's how it turned out. Conversely, we wasted draft pick after draft pick and signed gobs of crappy, cast-off CBs looking to get lucky. He finally got it right when he stopped trying to be cute.



Our defense was absolutely dismantled in the playoffs, but I'll give you this... the Cleveland cast-offs gave us some production for a season, then fell apart completely.



Yea, I'm sure the folks on this message board were sitting in on the conference call and know that as fact. Wait, now you're going to tell me that Kerney said this was the case? Yea, a player would never make a statement like that if it wasn't true. :thumbs:

Anyway, there's some excuse like this every year why poor old Denver can't commit to the defensive line. I've been hearing the pity party for the last decade.



There's not a single defensive starter on that list.

Beyond that, the idea that we can occasionally find a guy who can play in the late rounds isn't a news flash. I noticed you had to go back 14 years to come up with one example and seven years for another. So, I'm not sure what the point is, here.



Not every time, just once in a decade. How's that? How about ONE time in a TEN year span, we either trade up in the first round or we trade/sign for some real D-line talent. Not EVERY time.... once. Or, god forbid, once in a while. Shanahan had NO problem trading up when he wanted his offensive toys and no problem trading for the league's best CB when he had his CB fetish going on. But, for some reason... it's just a big string of excuses around here as to why this guy refuses to ever take the D-line seriously.
(Pity party continues.)

(I do understand we drafted Moss last year, before anyone reminds me.)



Again, a baseless myth with no examples, no foundation and zero factual information to back it up. Just something dudes have repeated on internet message boards until other dudes assume it's true.



Signing "big names" is not what its about. It's about making proper moves when you have the opportunity. New England makes the proper moves. They've signed some small names, some big names and have been highly effective in the draft.

We've done very little of the above, if any.

If you want to fabricate straw-man arguments ("we need to sign all big names").... feel free. That's obviously not what I'm saying.



Bailey and Lynch are studs. Marshall looks like he has a chance if he doesn't screw it up. Nalen and Hamilton were drafted ages ago.
The rest of those guys are somewhere between marginal and nice contributers.

We've got a few decent players. That doesn't detract from the truth, which is that we don't have enough... and that's largely a result of Mike Shanahan's ****-can drafting and ****-can free agent strategy.

For curiosities sake, were you clamoring for Elway to be gone after a down year? Were you yelling at the sidelines for Tommy Maddox to start warming up?

BroncoInferno
05-02-2008, 03:41 PM
Graham is the best in the business at what he does. (Blocking tight end.) Henry bounces from team to team and is a complete joke.

Henry's had several highly productive seasons and was coming off a 1200 yard campaign, so I wouldn't say he's a "complete joke" (at least not as player--as a human being, certainly, but that's not what we're debating).

But, you're right, even to call Graham a big name is a bit of a stretch, giving further support to my theory that our "big name" signings is a fantasy.

Well, it was certainly a high profile, big money move. I don't see how that is even debatable. Graham got a $15 million bonus and Henry $12 million. Both were highly sought after FAs who got a lot of scratch. What are you really arguing here? Who are some big names who were available that we passed on whom we shouldn't have? We've brought in guys to big deals who were sought after commodities, but they don't fit your arbitrary definition of "big name" so they don't count? Javon Walker, IHOP, Henry, Bly, etc were all high profile moves of guys who have been very productive NFL players. Those moves obviously haven't produced the results anyone is looking for.

He's the best player on our team, by 2x. I wouldn't take two of any other player we have for him. That's how it turned out.

Sure, his individual performance has been impeccable, but what did it do for the team? We had the exact same results the year after his acquisition.

Conversely, we wasted draft pick after draft pick and signed gobs of crappy, cast-off CBs looking to get lucky. He finally got it right when he stopped trying to be cute.

He wasted some picks to be sure. No argument there.

Our defense was absolutely dismantled in the playoffs, but I'll give you this... the Cleveland cast-offs gave us some production for a season, then fell apart completely.

Yes, in the AFCCG they fell apart. Up until then, they were a top notch, run stuffing unit that pretty much won us the NE game that season. The moves did not work out long term, you're right, but they weren't a total failure either. Point is, that approach paid big dividends, if only for a season.

Yea, I'm sure the folks on this message board were sitting in on the conference call and know that as fact. Wait, now you're going to tell me that Kerney said this was the case? Yea, a player would never make a statement like that if it wasn't true. :thumbs:

OK, it's all a lie then. All the statements to the contrary are just a big conspiracy. Whatever, dude.

Anyway, there's some excuse like this every year why poor old Denver can't commit to the defensive line. I've been hearing the pity party for the last decade.

Here we agree. After Pryce, it took Shanny 9 years to see fit to address the DL in the 1st round. Even in the first three rounds only a handful of choices were made. However, he seems to have learned his lesson spending three choices on the DL last offseason. DL HAS to be built through draft. The FA approach does not usually work. How many additional games would Kerney have won us last season? Probably not many. Plus, he's over 30. Let's see how much longer he remains productive. The best way to build DL is through the draft and we're starting to get that right. The draft method takes a little patience, though.

There's not a single defensive starter on that list.

Yeah, the D drafting has sucked. But that isn't what you said or implied.

Not every time, just once in a decade. How's that? How about ONE time in a TEN year span, we either trade up in the first round or we trade/sign for some real D-line talent. Not EVERY time.... once. Or, god forbid, once in a while. Shanahan had NO problem trading up when he wanted his offensive toys and no problem trading for the league's best CB when he had his CB fetish going on. But, for some reason... it's just a big string of excuses around here as to why this guy refuses to ever take the D-line seriously.
(Pity party continues.)

I agree he has failed to address DL in the past, but he changed that process with last years draft. I am sorry that is not good enough for you, but it is the best way to go. For one thing, top DL rarely hit the open market, and when they do they cost a ton. Hell, Tommy freakin' Kelley got $50 million this offseason! If that is the going rate, you better draft well. Let's see how Moss, Thomas and Crowder fair this season. If just two can play we will all of a sudden be in pretty good shape at that spot.

Again, a baseless myth with no examples, no foundation and zero factual information to back it up. Just something dudes have repeated on internet message boards until other dudes assume it's true.

Baseless? We didn't spend over $40 million in bonuses last offseason? We didn't drop a ton of money in the laps of Walker and IHOP in recent years? That is not a high profile, big money approach in your view? If not, what is?

Signing "big names" is not what its about. It's about making proper moves when you have the opportunity. New England makes the proper moves. They've signed some small names, some big names and have been highly effective in the draft.

We've done very little of the above, if any.

Of course it's about making proper moves. That isn't what you've been arguing. You've been b****ing because they brought in any big names. You didn't say that?

If you want to fabricate straw-man arguments ("we need to sign all big names").... feel free. That's obviously not what I'm saying.

Your argument has been pretty incoherent, so you'll have to forgive me. You've complained about a lot of things but really have bothered to give much elaboration. You called the draft picks "weird"...I gave you a very logical basis for each pick and asked you to elaborate on what you meant by "weird" and you didn't bother. Someone is stuffing strawmen here, but it ain't me.

Bailey and Lynch are studs. Marshall looks like he has a chance if he doesn't screw it up. Nalen and Hamilton were drafted ages ago.
The rest of those guys are somewhere between marginal and nice contributers.

A lot of them are also very young and likely to get better (Cutler, Dumervil, Scheffler). Not to mention youngsters I didn't name who I guess you think have no chance to improve...Moss, Thomas, Crowder, Clady, Kuper.

We've got a few decent players. That doesn't detract from the truth, which is that we don't have enough... and that's largely a result of Mike Shanahan's ****-can drafting and ****-can free agent strategy.

As I said before, you are choosing to take the negative position that none of the draft picks and moves we made to improve will pan out. None of the youngsters will improve. That seems to be what you're arguing. I think a few of the moves WILL pan out--though not all--and that will improve the team. It's not like we were 2-14. We were 7-9. We have made some moves both schematically and personel wise that should help. We have key starters returning from injuries. We have young guys who have improved and who there is no reason to suspect they won't continue to improve. I'm not saying we're a contender, but 10-6 is not an unreasonable or far-fetched prediction.

BroncoInferno
05-02-2008, 03:47 PM
Just for the record, Popps, do you think the team will be worse this season than in '07?

~Crash~
05-02-2008, 03:53 PM
I have not read a single post in this piece of **** thread what exactly would I have to do make this piece of horse crap thread go to the butt....

I am so sick of whiney assed so called fans. if for some crazy reason this was sarcasm just let this limp dicked thread die !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzbo thread ......horse piss............thread horse butt.....


Grow a spine you bunch of ass Muchies

Popps
05-04-2008, 01:22 AM
For curiosities sake, were you clamoring for Elway to be gone after a down year? Were you yelling at the sidelines for Tommy Maddox to start warming up?

You have it inverted, son.

I was clamoring for Elway to get some help around him and for Reeves to put a ****ing running game in place for this guy, not to mention some offensive weapons.

Just out of curiosity, were you even watching the games back then?

I was. So, tell you what... you worry about drinking your kool-aid, and I'll worry about talking football with the grown-ups who aren't so firmly planted in fantasy-land that they can't admit their team has shortcomings.

Broncoman13
04-27-2009, 07:54 AM
I was specific. I was actually fairly happy with what we did on the OL, though I'd still grab more help at #42, or trade into a spot where you get value on the line at that pick. But, Shanahan has a Devin Hester fetish and trust me, we won't stop with this kind of return-guy pick until he finds one, now. I hated that ****ing pick, and even if he works out... don't come back and look for me because we'll never know if we could have taken a dominant DL, OL or LB in that spot. 42 if VERY high to be taking novelty picks.



Homeboy, you obviously haven't been reading my posts. I've been making suggestions for Y E A R S on this board. Draft, free agency, trades.



Again, this may be a concept that message-board-guy can't wrap his head around. I don't know. But, it's not my job to find players at positions of need... it's the staff's. According to you, they can do no wrong... yet, we **** up the draft six ways to Sunday every year, not to mention free agency. (For the most part.)

How's this. You need a date Friday night. A girl knocks on your door. She happens to be an HIV-infected serial killer. I suggest that you don't date her.
Are you going to insist on dating her unless I give you an alternative, or is it possible that simply the idea of dating this girl might not be a good one?

Get it? Not knowing your alternative (yet) does not justify doing something stupid.

Get it?

Taking a little kick returner at #42 with massive holes on OL, DL, LB and S is stupid. It's stupid whether or not I know EXACTLY who we should have picked instead.

If we get lucky, and the kid can contribute, that still doesn't mean it wasn't stupid. It just means we made a silly pick and got lucky, but still have bigger need that weren't addressed.

Can you get your head around that?


Like you said Popps, it's fun on the OM after draft weekend. Lots of meltdowns to sit back and laugh at! I recall not liking the Royal pick at the time either. I was very surprised b/c I didn't know too much about him. Funny how a year can change things!

Broncoman13
04-27-2009, 07:56 AM
Makes me wonder why Popps isn't freaking out about the DL and LBs this year, but whatever.

TheReverend
04-27-2009, 08:09 AM
Makes me wonder why Popps isn't freaking out about the DL and LBs this year, but whatever.

Because he's strictly adversarial in nature. It doesn't matter to him what he's fighting about as long as he's fighting the same people about something. Mods should re-name his handle to "Travis" for the chimpanzee that went crazy, but that might be an insult to our intelligent chimp cousins.

footstepsfrom#27
04-27-2009, 08:16 AM
You have it inverted, son.

I was clamoring for Elway to get some help around him and for Reeves to put a ****ing running game in place for this guy, not to mention some offensive weapons.

Just out of curiosity, were you even watching the games back then?

I was. So, tell you what... you worry about drinking your kool-aid, and I'll worry about talking football with the grown-ups who aren't so firmly planted in fantasy-land that they can't admit their team has shortcomings.
I think the popular term for that now is "whining". Interesting...it's all based on whether the complaints are directed for or against one's personal POV that distinguishes the difference.

colonelbeef
04-27-2009, 08:43 AM
I think the popular term for that now is "whining". Interesting...it's all based on whether the complaints are directed for or against one's personal POV that distinguishes the difference.

QFT. Popps makes it easy.

Broncoman13
04-27-2009, 09:14 AM
It is funny how Popps forgot about his very own "whining" just last year.