View Full Version : Dennison anyone?
I know he isn't the sexy pick, he wouldn't bring "fresh" ideas, and is a very unlikely choice, but I can come up with a good list of reasons for him to be the guy:
-He'd keep the offense intact (Bates, Turner, ZBS, strong o-line play)
-He was a LB, so he has to know something about defense
-He's coached ST, so he's well rounded
-He's smart (masters in civil engineering)
I still like Spagnuolo, but he does have a lot going for him...he's paid his dues I'd say. just wanted to see what others thought?
Finger Roll
01-05-2009, 08:33 PM
no hell no. Spags or Mcdaniel
MagicHef
01-05-2009, 08:34 PM
As long as we got a real DC, I'd be fine with this.
Is he known as a motivational guy? Never really paid a lot of attention to him...
spdirty
01-05-2009, 08:50 PM
Is he known as a motivational guy? Never really paid a lot of attention to him...
no. Id rather see Alex Gibbs be our HC.
spdirty
01-05-2009, 08:51 PM
Id take Dennison over McDaniels or Morris though.
Man-Goblin
01-05-2009, 08:53 PM
I know my #1 criteria for replacing the best coach in the franchise's history was an engineering degree. Sign him up.
Dedhed
01-05-2009, 08:54 PM
I hope Dennison is gone as OC, let alone giving him the HC job.
bowtown
01-05-2009, 08:54 PM
I wouldn't LOVE him but I would be happy.
BroncoMan4ever
01-05-2009, 09:04 PM
no thanks.
it would just be Shanahan minus the GM powers.
no thanks.
it would just be Shanahan minus the GM powers.
It wouldn't be but if it were that would be bad?
Atlas
01-05-2009, 09:18 PM
I wouldn't be disappointed. Dennison would be a fine hire AS LONG AS Denver still finds a great D-Coordinator.
Maybe Morris would come over as D-Coordinator/Assistent Head Coach.
ColoradoBuff
01-05-2009, 09:25 PM
no thanks.....! Spags or McDaniel
BroncoMan4ever
01-05-2009, 09:35 PM
It wouldn't be but if it were that would be bad?
he would be Shanahan Lite.
and if we were going to just keep a very similar approach to our teams philosophy then there was no point in firing Shanahan.
when you fire someone it is because you want to go in a different direction, and anyone currently on staff wouldn't be a new direction.
lazarus4444
01-05-2009, 09:37 PM
I'd rather clean house except for bates and turner. Now that we are looking at this more and more Shanny's teams had a lot of holes, defense, special teams, coaching of fundamentals. nope, no shanahan crony, it'd be more of the same. This is a mercy interview.
theAPAOps5
01-05-2009, 09:57 PM
You think the Bowlen you Gutless Drunk thread is bad if Dennison gets the job boy howdy look out I will explode. Its not that I dislike Dennison or think he is a bad coach. But you fire the Master Mind you have to bring in as much new blood as possible as thats the only reason you did it. If you hire Dennison you hire Shanahan lite and it is a pathetic move maybe the worst move in NFL history.
So no.
he would be Shanahan Lite.
and if we were going to just keep a very similar approach to our teams philosophy then there was no point in firing Shanahan.
when you fire someone it is because you want to go in a different direction, and anyone currently on staff wouldn't be a new direction.
and why would keeping Shanahan's offensive ideas around be all that terrible? Dennison would still bring new defensive blood and direction I would think.
I'd rather clean house except for bates and turner. Now that we are looking at this more and more Shanny's teams had a lot of holes, defense, special teams, coaching of fundamentals. nope, no shanahan crony, it'd be more of the same. This is a mercy interview.
First, who do you propose to teach the ZBS? Second, I thought the offensive line was coached well in the fundamentals...
Los Broncos
01-05-2009, 11:06 PM
I like me some Dennison's chili.
he would be Shanahan Lite.
and if we were going to just keep a very similar approach to our teams philosophy then there was no point in firing Shanahan.
when you fire someone it is because you want to go in a different direction, and anyone currently on staff wouldn't be a new direction.
Well, that's not really correct. When Shanahan was fired, we fired a GM AND a Head Coach. Were Dennison to act as HC exactly as Shanahan would, but under a GM, that would be a completely different management structure than with the integrated HC and GM structure.
The integrated structure was the problem. If we had been able to keep Shanahan as HC and get a GM with real power, that would have been the ideal situation. IMHO, the problem for years has been Shanahan's lack of ability as a GM.
That said, bringing in a newcomer is not a bad idea. But promoting Dennison under a real GM would be a profound change in Dove Valley.
TheManeMan
01-05-2009, 11:39 PM
I know he isn't the sexy pick, he wouldn't bring "fresh" ideas, and is a very unlikely choice, but I can come up with a good list of reasons for him to be the guy:
-He'd keep the offense intact (Bates, Turner, ZBS, strong o-line play)
-He was a LB, so he has to know something about defense
-He's coached ST, so he's well rounded
-He's smart (masters in civil engineering)
I still like Spagnuolo, but he does have a lot going for him...he's paid his dues I'd say. just wanted to see what others thought?
This picture best describes my thoughts...
BroncoMan4ever
01-06-2009, 12:13 AM
and why would keeping Shanahan's offensive ideas around be all that terrible? Dennison would still bring new defensive blood and direction I would think.
technically last season wasn't even Shanahan's offensive idea. they were ripoffs of the 2007 Patriots offensive scheme. Bates and Shanahan even said they copied a lot of what the Patriots were doing. Also that is why Bowlen is pushing for Bates to stay on staff, so that he can keep a similar offense going.
With Dennison things would basically stay the same.
But for a Head Coach, we need new blood. we need a guy who is going to come in and shake **** up and change a lot about this team and not just on defense, but on special teams and offense also.
BroncoMan4ever
01-06-2009, 12:18 AM
Well, that's not really correct. When Shanahan was fired, we fired a GM AND a Head Coach. Were Dennison to act as HC exactly as Shanahan would, but under a GM, that would be a completely different management structure than with the integrated HC and GM structure.
The integrated structure was the problem. If we had been able to keep Shanahan as HC and get a GM with real power, that would have been the ideal situation. IMHO, the problem for years has been Shanahan's lack of ability as a GM.
That said, bringing in a newcomer is not a bad idea. But promoting Dennison under a real GM would be a profound change in Dove Valley.
i am talking strictly in a coaching way in my argument. i have nothing against Dennison. the only thing that i think would really change with Dennison as HC and a GM overseeing him would be, he doesn't have the free will to hire and fire coaches as he sees fit and he wouldn't get to get any player he wanted.
but on the field, the team philosophy would stay the same. there would be no real change in how the players play, how they go about doing everything.
with Shanahan being fired, it would make no sense to just bring in a guy who would do things the same way.
we need to get a guy who will change things up and get a new attitude and team philosophy going with this team.
Traveler
01-06-2009, 03:28 AM
Hell no!
Ratboy
01-06-2009, 03:50 AM
God no.. Bowlen will not hire someone from within.
BroncoFiend
01-06-2009, 06:07 AM
I can't say no strongly enough. If we go with Dennison why the heck did we fire Shanny? Status quo with a lesser coach implementing the plan. Keep him on in the same capacity...maybe.
Dedhed
01-06-2009, 06:35 AM
Every unit Dennison has touched in Denver has floundered outside of the OL in 2008. Last year the OL was terrible, and this years run blocking schemes left a lot to be desired.
Dennison got lucky by the front office hitting on two stud Ts, but I don't see where people think he's been even a decent coach for us. Dennisn is King Shidas; instead of gold, anything he touches turns to....well, shidus.