PDA

View Full Version : Bates' role now in question


oubronco
01-13-2009, 05:38 AM
Josh McDaniels' statement Monday that he will handle play-calling duties for the Broncos might further cloud the future of the person who handled that job in 2008.

Jeremy Bates remains under contract with the Broncos and will interview with McDaniels to clarify his future.

In his official capacity this season as passing-game coordinator, Bates became among the closest staff members to quarterback Jay Cutler.

"I think Josh and Jeremy will sit down and talk and he'll decide Jeremy's role, if any, with our team," said Jim Goodman, the Broncos' de facto general manager. "But his experience has been with play-calling, and we respected that when we talked to him and we asked him the question whether he'll call plays, and he said, 'Yes.' You have to respect that. He's done it."

Other holdover assistants the Broncos want to interview with McDaniels are running backs coach Bobby Turner, receivers coach Jedd Fisch and offensive coordinator Rick Dennison, who met Monday with San Francisco 49ers officials about their coordinator vacancy.

McDaniels to pick staff

Broncos owner Pat Bowlen has voiced his preferences for bringing back certain assistants but indicated he won't push the issue with McDaniels.

"I think it would be a mistake for me to say, 'You've got to do this' in that type of situation because then if it doesn't work out, then it's my problem," Bowlen said. "But I think there are some coaches here I'd like to see remain. If the head coach decides he can't do that, then it's going to be his decision."

McDaniels said he'll have "no preconceived notion" on the future of Broncos assistants, of whom he knows only a couple informally.

"That's a decision that will be made here over the next few days," he said.

Even-keeled

McDaniels was careful many times not to go too deep into personnel deficiencies, nor would he make any grand pronouncements about the state of the team.

The Broncos have gone three straight seasons without a playoff appearance.

"I think I'll reserve judgment on that. I want to evaluate everything we can evaluate here," he said.

"But our goal is to win, and as soon as we can do it at a championship level, that's what we're going to try and make happen here. When that is or timetables, I don't want to say.

"But there are good players here and there's a tradition of winning. I'm proud to join it."

No do-overs

After hours of meetings, piles of questions to go with piles of answers and a cross-country trip thrown in as well, Bowlen said he isn't in any hurry to do such an extensive search for a coach any time soon.

Bowlen interviewed seven candidates in a week, making it the biggest search he has conducted for a coach.

"Enjoyable would be stretching it a little bit," Bowlen said. "But it was educational."

He added: "All of the people I interviewed, I can't think of one person who didn't have some right to be here. . . . In the past, it hasn't been that way. These guys out there now have done their homework."

On 'Spygate'

McDaniels was asked about the impact of the Patriots' "Spygate" troubles, in which the team was fined $250,000 and docked a first-round pick, and coach Bill Belichick was fined $500,000 for videotaping New York Jets defensive signals in the 2007 regular-season opener.

"It really didn't affect us, to tell you the truth," McDaniels said. "I don't think it's good to have that kind of attention. . . . Certainly never looking to do anything that's not within the rules established by the National Football League. They determined the punishment on that, it was what it was and we moved on."

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/12/broncos-report-bates-role-now-in-question/

TheReverend
01-13-2009, 06:03 AM
Considering Bates' new contract was signed off by the FO and finished Dec 24th, yet Pat's inclination is to let the HC handle off of his coaching staff, this really illustrates how this entire situation WAS an impulse thing.

So what was the tipping point?
A) SD game?
B) Taking back "power"?
C) Something even more obscure?

colonelbeef
01-13-2009, 06:12 AM
Considering Bates' new contract was signed off by the FO and finished Dec 24th, yet Pat's inclination is to let the HC handle off of his coaching staff, this really illustrates how this entire situation WAS an impulse thing.

So what was the tipping point?
A) SD game?
B) Taking back "power"?
C) Something even more obscure?

Yep. I get the feeling that Bowlen just wanted to make a power play, like something that was said about how Shanahan owns him and the Broncos and that Bowlen is just his butt buddy finally pissed him off enough.

watermock
01-13-2009, 06:14 AM
Well, Pat's managed to blow up the 1 thing that worked pretty good despite 7 RB's on IR.,

What's next on his plate? Rebuild the offensive staff around a rookie HC?

I thought this offseason was about fixing the defense?

Nolan??? Collier's dunce.

You want to see our future defense, just look at Dallas without the talent. or SF's.

oubronco
01-13-2009, 06:18 AM
Nolans stats are a lot better than Slowdicks but not that impressive either

watermock
01-13-2009, 06:24 AM
Nolan runs Colliers soft 4-3.

oubronco
01-13-2009, 06:26 AM
I don't want a soft 4-3 that sits back I want a "STRONG" playing Defense that attacks

cmhargrove
01-13-2009, 06:29 AM
Considering Bates' new contract was signed off by the FO and finished Dec 24th, yet Pat's inclination is to let the HC handle off of his coaching staff, this really illustrates how this entire situation WAS an impulse thing.

So what was the tipping point?
A) SD game?
B) Taking back "power"?
C) Something even more obscure?



I think Jeremy Bates has an incredibly keen mind for playcalling - he was a real asset for the Broncos in 2008. However, he isn't very good at teaching decision making, or working with Jay on "winning games" rather than making highlight reels. He just seems like too much "buddy" and not enough "coach."

Jay needs more discipline to win a championship. He can still be a gunslinger with a rocket arm when necessary, but he needs to look for more short routes to keep drives going. That is a quality that is very "Brady-esque" and I would really, really like to see Cutler makes strides in that area.

If McDaniels can help Cutler with that discipline, then its worth losing Bates.

TheReverend
01-13-2009, 06:59 AM
I think Jeremy Bates has an incredibly keen mind for playcalling - he was a real asset for the Broncos in 2008. However, he isn't very good at teaching decision making, or working with Jay on "winning games" rather than making highlight reels. He just seems like too much "buddy" and not enough "coach."

Jay needs more discipline to win a championship. He can still be a gunslinger with a rocket arm when necessary, but he needs to look for more short routes to keep drives going. That is a quality that is very "Brady-esque" and I would really, really like to see Cutler makes strides in that area.

If McDaniels can help Cutler with that discipline, then its worth losing Bates.

I don't necessarily disagree. I'm focused in on the parts of the article that show the plan as of 12-24 was to keep the current staff in place, and then trying to figure out what Bowlen's catalyst was.

cmhargrove
01-13-2009, 07:13 AM
I don't necessarily disagree. I'm focused in on the parts of the article that show the plan as of 12-24 was to keep the current staff in place, and then trying to figure out what Bowlen's catalyst was.

I agree with you Rev, but I also think this is very good that everything will be broken down and rebuilt. We can keep all the components that work, but they should all be re-evaluated. Bates, Turner, Dennison, and Fisch could all be assets if they accept whatever roles McDaniels gives them - otherwise they would just be talented and dysfunctional.

I think in the long run, Bowlen had a gut feeling that Shanny had just stagnated. This organization needed a shakeup to make any progress. It is painful, but looking back I think it was also necessary.

Shanny was going to keep Slowik. Holy ****! Could you imagine what another 1-2 years of drafting for Slowik would do for this organization? Dear God, I think we have already wasted a couple years of Champ's career, and it would be a travesty to see him spend his last few years under Slowik.

This organization needed to change, Bowlen rolled the dice. I'm sad about losing Shanahan, but this looks promising. We are shooting for the whole ball of wax here - looks like a dynasty build or bust. But, we will probably do better than 24-24 over the next three seasons.

theAPAOps5
01-13-2009, 07:15 AM
I don't want a soft 4-3 that sits back I want a "STRONG" playing Defense that attacks

Mock doesn't know what he is talking about. Nolan employs the 3-4 defense. Which is more aggressive by nature.

Killericon
01-13-2009, 07:19 AM
Considering Bates' new contract was signed off by the FO and finished Dec 24th, yet Pat's inclination is to let the HC handle off of his coaching staff, this really illustrates how this entire situation WAS an impulse thing.

So what was the tipping point?
A) SD game?
B) Taking back "power"?
C) Something even more obscure?

Does anyone here actually think that Shanahan wouldn't still be the coach if we beat San Diego or Buffalo?

theAPAOps5
01-13-2009, 07:20 AM
Does anyone here actually think that Shanahan wouldn't still be the coach if we beat San Diego or Buffalo?

If they beat Buffalo and SD and showed strong in the playoffs, yes. But it sounds to me that Bowlen started thinking about this mid season. Then sealed the deal after the SD debacle.

Rock Chalk
01-13-2009, 07:21 AM
I don't necessarily disagree. I'm focused in on the parts of the article that show the plan as of 12-24 was to keep the current staff in place, and then trying to figure out what Bowlen's catalyst was.

It really doesnt matter what the catalyst was. Its done and the team is in for A LOT more change than we thought we were going to see.

Change is necessary and in many cases, scary. I was worried about losing the offensive coaching if we hired McDaniel but now Im hearing that it didnt matter who we hired, most of the offensive staff was going to leave anyway. I agreed with the decision to let Shanahan move on, but I also knew that it was risky.

Broncos football, the football we have grown used to and all love, I think is dead. It died the day Bowlen fired Shanahan and now we have to adapt to a new type of Broncos football. One that may not feature the run game (or it may, we really just dont know yet) but one that certainly wont allow for plug an dplay running backs anymore.

Change, Obama preached it, now we got it. ****. :)

Kaylore
01-13-2009, 07:23 AM
I don't buy that this was a snap decision. I think Bowlen let Mike run things as usual until his termination and Bates was part of that. If he put the brakes on a staff member extension, especially in the playoff hunt with games to play, it would send a message you don't have confidence in either coach and be a distraction. Bowlen let Shanahan try and get into the playoffs and make a run. He let him wear all his hats through the end of the season and that included letting Bates get an extension. After it all unraveled he canned Shanahan and now nothing is off the table, including letting Bates go.

I think if Bates fits into the plans of McDaniels then he should stay but we should not bend around what the new head coach wants to do to accommodate Bates. McDaniels is the head coach and we need to give him every opportunity to run things the way he thinks will give us a championship. Bates is a great coach, but he's an assistant and having everyone on the same page takes precedence over whatever relationship Bates and Cutler have. Hopefully we can have our cake and eat it too, but if not Bates is gone.

theAPAOps5
01-13-2009, 07:27 AM
And Cutler will mope and make a statement about it but in the end he will get over it too.

TonyR
01-13-2009, 07:28 AM
...the team is in for A LOT more change than we thought we were going to see.


If this change includes better defense, better special teams, an offense that moves the ball and scores, division titles, and playoff wins, I'm 100% in favor of it.

oubronco
01-13-2009, 07:29 AM
I'd kinda like to have Bates stay and work with McDaniels together they would probably come up with one helluva game plan and Bates could still work with Cutler

Beantown Bronco
01-13-2009, 07:33 AM
and now we have to adapt to a new type of Broncos football. One that may not feature the run game (or it may, we really just dont know yet) but one that certainly wont allow for plug an dplay running backs anymore.

As long as Clady, Harris and Kuper are starting, I don't see the running game stalling out any time soon.

Chris
01-13-2009, 07:34 AM
Bates gives Cutler his insulin shots... who's going to do that now???

Rock Chalk
01-13-2009, 07:34 AM
If this change includes better defense, better special teams, an offense that moves the ball and scores, division titles, and playoff wins, I'm 100% in favor of it.

Don';t count on it this next year dude. It may happen but odds are stacked against big improvements in any of the areas next year.

TheReverend
01-13-2009, 07:38 AM
I don't buy that this was a snap decision. I think Bowlen let Mike run things as usual until his termination and Bates was part of that. If he put the brakes on a staff member extension, especially in the playoff hunt with games to play, it would send a message you don't have confidence in either coach and be a distraction. Bowlen let Shanahan try and get into the playoffs and make a run. He let him wear all his hats through the end of the season and that included letting Bates get an extension. After it all unraveled he canned Shanahan and now nothing is off the table, including letting Bates go.

I think if Bates fits into the plans of McDaniels then he should stay but we should not bend around what the new head coach wants to do to accommodate Bates. McDaniels is the head coach and we need to give him every opportunity to run things the way he thinks will give us a championship. Bates is a great coach, but he's an assistant and having everyone on the same page takes precedence over whatever relationship Bates and Cutler have. Hopefully we can have our cake and eat it too, but if not Bates is gone.

But what background do you have to NOT think it was a snap decision, really?

The last two pressers have shown that the Goodmans have handled the past three drafts (Shanahan) and also free agency (McDaniels). As fun as it is for local writers to claim Shanahan was a "Supreme Dictator for Life" ala Adolf, he certainly wouldn't be the only man involved in signing off and creating a new contract for Bates.

Now, if this weren't impulsive, why would the Bowlen and anyone else who may have placed input into the decision (Xanders, Ellis, Goodmans) allow a week 16 contract, instead of waiting ONE week until the post-season to evaluate their own direction and make these decisions?

It was either impulsive or poor business. I'm certainly not inclined to believe they practive poor business.

Personal coaching preferences aside, doesn't anyone else find that curious?

TheReverend
01-13-2009, 07:39 AM
Don';t count on it this next year dude. It may happen but odds are stacked against big improvements in any of the areas next year.

Personally, I think odds are stacked for great leaps defensively and, in turn, ST coverage units. The FA market and draft are just too good and too deep this year.

Kaylore
01-13-2009, 07:40 AM
But what background do you have to NOT think it was a snap decision, really?

The last two pressers have shown that the Goodmans have handled the past three drafts (Shanahan) and also free agency (McDaniels). As fun as it is for local writers to claim Shanahan was a "Supreme Dictator for Life" ala Adolf, he certainly wouldn't be the only man involved in signing off and creating a new contract for Bates.

Now, if this weren't impulsive, why would the Bowlen and anyone else who may have placed input into the decision (Xanders, Ellis, Goodmans) allow a week 16 contract, instead of waiting ONE week until the post-season to evaluate their own direction and make these decisions?

It was either impulsive or poor business. I'm certainly not inclined to believe they practive poor business.

Personal coaching preferences aside, doesn't anyone else find that curious?

I don't. When has Bowlen ever put his hand down and vetoed anything Shanahan has done? Bowlen believes in hiring good people and getting out of their way. If he suddenly starts shutting down hires in the middle of the season it would throw up all sorts of red flags. If he had done that Shanahan would have cause to say Bowlen disrupted the chemistry of the staff. It doesn't make sense on so many levels. I know you're determined to think this was a power play and purely ego driven, but I think Bowlen was tired of missing the playoffs and seeing his team's fan base dwindle and decided it was time to move on. I don't think there was any event that triggered it beyond seeing his team get blown out on national TV for the second time and undergo one of the worst team collapses in NFL history to miss the playoffs. I think Bowlen said "enough is enough."

Rock Chalk
01-13-2009, 07:41 AM
Personally, I think odds are stacked for great leaps defensively and, in turn, ST coverage units. The FA market and draft are just too good and too deep this year.

Is Bowlen going to spend in FA? Recent history suggests that route is over with and that Bowlen;s play is to build through the draft.

And get money savers in FA.

theAPAOps5
01-13-2009, 07:43 AM
Is Bowlen going to spend in FA? Recent history suggests that route is over with and that Bowlen;s play is to build through the draft.

And get money savers in FA.

I think in order to sell the whole move he will spend a little extra again in FA to bring players in to speed the transition. He has to, this can't be a 3 or 4 year deal.

Man-Goblin
01-13-2009, 07:45 AM
And Cutler will mope and make a statement about it but in the end he will get over it too.

Exactly. I believe desire of many to keep Bates is based more on an accomodation to Cutler than a declaration that Bates is irreplacable. But as you say, Jay will eventually get over it and is probably already getting excited at the prospects of all this uncertainty. Same with the people around here, including myself.

And if Jay is still butthurt, I am sure that $80-100 million contract he's going to sign in a couple of years will help.

Hulamau
01-13-2009, 07:50 AM
I think Jeremy Bates has an incredibly keen mind for playcalling - he was a real asset for the Broncos in 2008. However, he isn't very good at teaching decision making, or working with Jay on "winning games" rather than making highlight reels. He just seems like too much "buddy" and not enough "coach."

Jay needs more discipline to win a championship. He can still be a gunslinger with a rocket arm when necessary, but he needs to look for more short routes to keep drives going. That is a quality that is very "Brady-esque" and I would really, really like to see Cutler makes strides in that area.

If McDaniels can help Cutler with that discipline, then its worth losing Bates.

I feel that way about Bates too. A talented coach, but a bit to much of a chummy buddy with Jay and at times too many hay-maker bombs in a row. Not enough goods in the red zone.

Granted he had little running game to work with and I wouldn't mind him staying on as a titular OC and QB coach, but with McD clearly calling the shots and coaching up Jay on the finer points or harnessing his incredible talent and not going the Favre route of just winging it into triple coverage with a blanket on top.

Would love to see Bobby T stay as well for the backs he did as good a job as anyone can expect for years here and this year too when all his horses were down.

Taco John
01-13-2009, 07:53 AM
And if Jay is still butthurt, I am sure that $80-100 million contract he's going to sign in a couple of years will help.

The question will be, who is he going to sign it for?

lostknight
01-13-2009, 08:06 AM
All of the criticism here about Bates could just as easily been said about Shanahan when he was Elway's coach.

If Jeremy Bates comes in and immediately dismisses the two coaches that had the most success last year - Bates and the coach that has had the most success the last decade - Bobby Turner, he is a fool of the first order, unless he has God on high playing calls, and the arch-angel for a assistant coach.

I liked the McDaniel's pick yesterday. But everything since the press introduction has worried me. If he thinks he can transplant the New England way of doing things into the Mile High city he is both ignoring problems with the New England approach - it's wildly inconsistant running game for example, and it's complete dependency on two players (Welker and Moss) to surive - and ignoring strengths of Denver - the run game and a Quarterback who can make every plan on the field, including ones he should not.

TheReverend
01-13-2009, 08:29 AM
I don't. When has Bowlen ever put his hand down and vetoed anything Shanahan has done? Bowlen believes in hiring good people and getting out of their way. If he suddenly starts shutting down hires in the middle of the season it would throw up all sorts of red flags. If he had done that Shanahan would have cause to say Bowlen disrupted the chemistry of the staff. It doesn't make sense on so many levels. I know you're determined to think this was a power play and purely ego driven, but I think Bowlen was tired of missing the playoffs and seeing his team's fan base dwindle and decided it was time to move on. I don't think there was any event that triggered it beyond seeing his team get blown out on national TV for the second time and undergo one of the worst team collapses in NFL history to miss the playoffs. I think Bowlen said "enough is enough."

No, man. I'm not "determined" to think anyway.

"There's a time for business and a time for football". That's an extremely common saying in the league AND it's general practice. Post-poning focusing on a new contract to focus on the season would hardly have thrown up any red flags.

bjeffrey
01-13-2009, 08:30 AM
I guess its a measure of how unsettling a HC change is to the board, but look at the energy we are devoting to the impact of the hiring on our offense, when McDaniels hasn't done ANYTHING yet but hold a press conference. Let the dust settle a bit. I don't see any reason to worry about our offense. As an aside, we pretty much rebuilt our OL this year.
As well as it performed, the parade of RB's behind it made it difficult to evaluate how effective it can be in the run game. Once we see how the assistant coaches break down, then we'll have something to talk/speculate about.

Kaylore
01-13-2009, 08:38 AM
All of the criticism here about Bates could just as easily been said about Shanahan when he was Elway's coach.

If Jeremy Bates comes in and immediately dismisses the two coaches that had the most success last year - Bates and the coach that has had the most success the last decade - Bobby Turner, he is a fool of the first order, unless he has God on high playing calls, and the arch-angel for a assistant coach.
That's crap.

What if Bates refuses to cooperate and wants to call plays somewhere else? What if Bobby Turner wants to move on for his career? This is McDaniels' show and anyone that isn't on board needs to go.

TheReverend
01-13-2009, 08:41 AM
That's crap.

What if Bates refuses to cooperate and wants to call plays somewhere else? What if Bobby Turner wants to move on for his career? This is McDaniels' show and anyone that isn't on board needs to go.

A little more passionate than I would have put it, but I agree.

He's going to be the man judged on the end result, so it should be in his power to decide his staff, and not be handcuffed to a group of coaches that may not even agree with his base philosophy and scheme and create a divisive attitude in the staff. That being said, I DO hope he can work out a favorable situation with Bates, Dennison, Turner and O'Brien.

TonyR
01-13-2009, 08:43 AM
I don't see any reason to worry about our offense.

I agree. McDaniels helped guide a first time starter QB to an 11-5 record and a 89.4 QB rating which was 10th in the league (Cutler was 16th at 86.0). I think we're in good hands.

lostknight
01-13-2009, 08:44 AM
That's crap.
Glad you think so.


What if Bates refuses to cooperate and wants to call plays somewhere else? What if Bobby Turner wants to move on for his career? This is McDaniels' show and anyone that isn't on board needs to go.

Given that all of your objections are on some pseudo-hypothetical ground, as opposed to the reality of what thoose two coaches have accomplished, I don't see much here to justify your expression of "crap."

I have no doubt that either of these two gentleman could get another job. Adam Schefter said it correctly - Bates will be a head coach in this leauge. Just like Reeves with Shanahan, that presents a threat to our new head coach. He may be gotten rid of for no other reason then that. That's no more far-fetched then your hypothesis that they are not on board with the new coach.

TheReverend
01-13-2009, 08:46 AM
Glad you think so.



Given that all of your objections are on some pseudo-hypothetical ground, as opposed to the reality of what thoose two coaches have accomplished, I don't see much here to justify your expression of "crap."

I have no doubt that either of these two gentleman could get another job. Adam Schefter said it correctly - Bates will be a head coach in this leauge. Just like Reeves with Shanahan, that presents a threat to our new head coach. He may be gotten rid of for no other reason then that. That's no more far-fetched then your hypothesis that they are not on board with the new coach.

Mind if I interject?

The merits you pose for these guys I can guarantee you are evident to a guy like McDaniels. It's going to come down to whether or not they can reach a common ground between their scheme and philosophy and point blank, if they're willing to.

See my previous post. You're right though, they're all great coaches.

Kaylore
01-13-2009, 08:49 AM
A little more passionate than I would have put it, but I agree.

He's going to be the man judged on the end result, so it should be in his power to decide his staff, and not be handcuffed to a group of coaches that may not even agree with his base philosophy and scheme and create a divisive attitude in the staff. That being said, I DO hope he can work out a favorable situation with Bates, Dennison, Turner and O'Brien.

And I totally agree. I don't mean to sound like a "with us or against us" guy, I just think its critically important that everyone buys in. This is a new coach and building trust starts with all the other coaches showing that faith so the players can start to believe in what they're doing.

I'd love for them to stay, however we're talking about an Erhardt-Perkins guy coming into a WC staff. I have some concerns about how well each can mesh. Obviously football fundamentals are the same, and Dennison deserves to stay just for how amazing the line was last year, and Bates has the rapport with Jay which is very attractive. But I just wonder if it will all work.

Personally I think Jay has too many guys around him telling him how good he is and he needs a hard ass to tell him when he sucks and to tell him to stop pouting on the podium. I also think each coach should be interviewed by McDaniels like it's a new hire and then if they beat out the other options then they stay.

If we're going to blow this thing up, and we are, then let's do this thing right.

Kaylore
01-13-2009, 08:52 AM
Glad you think so.



Given that all of your objections are on some pseudo-hypothetical ground, as opposed to the reality of what thoose two coaches have accomplished, I don't see much here to justify your expression of "crap."

I have no doubt that either of these two gentleman could get another job. Adam Schefter said it correctly - Bates will be a head coach in this leauge. Just like Reeves with Shanahan, that presents a threat to our new head coach. He may be gotten rid of for no other reason then that.
If that's true and he feels Bates' presence will undermine his coaching tenure then he should let him walk. If it makes the team more cohesive and they win then it will be the right choice.

montrose
01-13-2009, 08:53 AM
Personally I think Jay has too many guys around him telling him how good he is and he needs a hard ass to tell him when he sucks and to tell him to stop pouting on the podium. I also think each coach should be interviewed by McDaniels like it's a new hire and then if they beat out the other options then they stay.

If we're going to blow this thing up, and we are, then let's do this thing right.

I completely agree. Jay's picked up some very bad on-field and off-field habits I'd like to see stopped. As for the coaches, watching his one-on-one interview with 9news - it's pretty obvious that McDaniels is going to come in here and do it HIS way with HIS offense. He said point blank in the interview (and his press conference) that we're running the offense he's bringing from New England. It might have some wrinkles to it for our personnel, but it's going to be in large part what he ran with the Patriots. If Bates, Dennison or Turner are better at coaching McDaniels' offense to the players than so be it - but if I were McDaniels, I'd want every trace of Shanahan's staff gone so I get a fresh start for MY football team.

baja
01-13-2009, 08:53 AM
It really doesnt matter what the catalyst was. Its done and the team is in for A LOT more change than we thought we were going to see.

Change is necessary and in many cases, scary. I was worried about losing the offensive coaching if we hired McDaniel but now Im hearing that it didnt matter who we hired, most of the offensive staff was going to leave anyway. I agreed with the decision to let Shanahan move on, but I also knew that it was risky.

Broncos football, the football we have grown used to and all love, I think is dead. It died the day Bowlen fired Shanahan and now we have to adapt to a new type of Broncos football. One that may not feature the run game (or it may, we really just dont know yet) but one that certainly wont allow for plug an dplay running backs anymore.

Change, Obama preached it, now we got it. ****. :)

Well said Alec. However I think the verdict is still out on the running back success though.

TheReverend
01-13-2009, 08:55 AM
And I totally agree. I don't mean to sound like a "with us or against us" guy, I just think its critically important that everyone buys in. This is a new coach and building trust starts with all the other coaches showing that faith so the players can start to believe in what they're doing.

I'd love for them to stay, however we're talking about an Erhardt-Perkins guy coming into a WC staff. I have some concerns about how well each can mesh. Obviously football fundamentals are the same, and Dennison deserves to stay just for how amazing the line was last year, and Bates has the rapport with Jay which is very attractive. But I just wonder if it will all work.

Personally I think Jay has too many guys around him telling him how good he is and he needs a hard ass to tell him when he sucks and to tell him to stop pouting on the podium. I also think each coach should be interviewed by McDaniels like it's a new hire and then if they beat out the other options then they stay.

If we're going to blow this thing up, and we are, then let's do this thing right.

Staffs on the whole need to be adaptable. I think they'll all be able to see that and find common ground. Close to home example:

Cards fire Denny Green, hire the Whis. A good chunk of that was his success creating an offense with a young QB under center (just drafted Leinart).

Now, he's obviously a run first guy with a preference for 3-4 defenses coming into an air attack offense and a 4-3 defense.

What happened? Compromise.

The air weapons don't fit his scheme or philosophy, so he adapted to them. He and Rus built and coached up the OL parts and made them much better. They now have a respectable running game and a dominant passing situation. Defensively, they met with Clancy and worked some 3-4 attributes into his defense and made an entirely new hybrid D that has been effective in creating gaudy turnovers.

Good people will be looking at this situation with clear heads and coming up with reasonable resolutions to every scheme and philosophy conflict.

baja
01-13-2009, 08:57 AM
I don't buy that this was a snap decision. I think Bowlen let Mike run things as usual until his termination and Bates was part of that. If he put the brakes on a staff member extension, especially in the playoff hunt with games to play, it would send a message you don't have confidence in either coach and be a distraction. Bowlen let Shanahan try and get into the playoffs and make a run. He let him wear all his hats through the end of the season and that included letting Bates get an extension. After it all unraveled he canned Shanahan and now nothing is off the table, including letting Bates go.

I think if Bates fits into the plans of McDaniels then he should stay but we should not bend around what the new head coach wants to do to accommodate Bates. McDaniels is the head coach and we need to give him every opportunity to run things the way he thinks will give us a championship. Bates is a great coach, but he's an assistant and having everyone on the same page takes precedence over whatever relationship Bates and Cutler have. Hopefully we can have our cake and eat it too, but if not Bates is gone.

This is the best guess I have read here as to how the firing went down. I bet you are very close to the truth here Kaylore.

PS I wish you and your bride a long and joy filled marriage. :thumbsup:

TheReverend
01-13-2009, 09:00 AM
This is the best guess I have read here as to how the firing went down. I bet you are very close to the truth here Kaylore.

PS I wish you and your bride a long and joy filled marriage. :thumbsup:

Wow.

Kaylore didn't even need to suffix it with a banana picture to get the monkey behind it! :wiggle:

Man-Goblin
01-13-2009, 09:06 AM
The question will be, who is he going to sign it for?

I seriously doubt he will want to play the franchise tag game over a coach that left 3 years prior.

baja
01-13-2009, 09:08 AM
Wow.

Kaylore didn't even need to suffix it with a banana picture to get the monkey behind it! :wiggle:

You say that because it is so crystal clear your version is correct?
???

I think Kaylore's reasoning best reflects the mannerisms and business philosophy of Bowlen.

Bowlen has never been the snap decision guy that you are portraying in post after redundant post

TheReverend
01-13-2009, 09:13 AM
You say that because it is so crystal clear your version is correct???

Well, on one hand I AM perfect and on the other your most recently posted photo of you on your mid-east trip:

http://www.lovesanimals.com/images/animals/monkey/funny_monkey.jpg

!Booya!

Taco John
01-13-2009, 09:15 AM
I seriously doubt he will want to play the franchise tag game over a coach that left 3 years prior.

I think that will largely depend on the stability of the organization when his contract is up.

This team needs to win THIS year. Anything less than the playoffs flirts with long term disaster.

baja
01-13-2009, 09:16 AM
http://www.lovesanimals.com/images/animals/monkey/funny_monkey.jpg


This is what you do folks when you have nothing to say or have lost an argument ;D

Rohirrim
01-13-2009, 09:20 AM
I think that will largely depend on the stability of the organization when his contract is up.

This team needs to win THIS year. Anything less than the playoffs flirts with long term disaster.

I'm going to take this in the spirit it was intended... Hilarious!



I hope.

TheReverend
01-13-2009, 09:24 AM
This is what you do folks when you have nothing to say or have lost an argument ;D

Or you could refute my post. If you want to just cling to Kaylore's back like a koala bear, that's fine, then refute my response to his post.

Monkey...:wiggle:

Popps
01-13-2009, 09:27 AM
Seems to me that Bowlen made a perfectly rational decision. He replaced the head of a unit that was non-performing for a decade. He kept the door open for some of the better performers of that staff to be retained, if the new management saw fit.

Kaylore
01-13-2009, 09:28 AM
Baja just knows I'm right. Look at how much we agree on politics....oh wait...

Taco John
01-13-2009, 09:30 AM
Seems to me that if Bowlen was going to make this move, he should have done it two years ago, or two years from now. I think setting this organization on a path, and then jerking with the continuity just when the pieces are coming together is risky at best - foolhardy at worst.

Popps
01-13-2009, 09:30 AM
I think that will largely depend on the stability of the organization when his contract is up.

This team needs to win THIS year. Anything less than the playoffs flirts with long term disaster.

Funny stuff.

But, the reality is that this team just needs to get stronger as the season goes on, not fizzle and fail in the 2nd half, as was our MO under Shanahan for most of the last 10.

But, there's great reason for hope... considering the staff that's being put together. This defense is finally going to get the attention it deserves instead of Brows cast-offs and bad draft picks.

Taco John
01-13-2009, 09:33 AM
But, the reality is that this team just needs to get stronger as the season goes on...


Getting stronger as the season goes on means making the playoffs... Unless you're imagining that we lose over half the games in the first half of the season.

Beantown Bronco
01-13-2009, 09:34 AM
If you want to just cling to Kaylore's back like a koala bear, that's fine, then refute my response to his post.

I always thought Kaylore simply had a ridiculously hairy back.....now it's all coming together.

outdoor_miner
01-13-2009, 09:36 AM
This is just a "rumor" article, so obviously should be taken with a grain of salt... However, McDaniels' agent suggests that Bowlen and the Broncos were tracking McDaniels before Shanahan was even fired:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/rumors/post/Bowlen-smitten-with-McDaniels-before-Shanahan-?urn=nfl,133972

Perhaps this wasn't just a knee-jerk reaction, and despite the nay-sayers, Bowlen had a plan all along. Alas, we'll never know for sure...

oubronco
01-13-2009, 09:37 AM
Seems to me that Bowlen made a perfectly rational decision. He replaced the head of a unit that was non-performing for a decade. He kept the door open for some of the better performers of that staff to be retained, if the new management saw fit.

thats all that they could ask for IMO

baja
01-13-2009, 09:39 AM
Or you could refute my post. If you want to just cling to Kaylore's back like a koala bear, that's fine, then refute my response to his post.

Monkey...:wiggle:

Refute! What the hell is there to refute? You think Pat Bowlen, contrary to what his long track record indicates, had made a snap decision.

I think Pat Bowlen, as he himself said, made a decision he had been thinking about for some time and i like the way Kaylore laid it out.

There is nothing to refute, This is your opinion and I think you are wrong.

TheReverend
01-13-2009, 09:49 AM
Funny stuff.

But, the reality is that this team just needs to get stronger as the season goes on, not fizzle and fail in the 2nd half, as was our MO under Shanahan for most of the last 10.

Myth.

Go ahead and research the last 10 years, seperate the Wins and Losses by halves and post it.

Popps
01-13-2009, 09:53 AM
Getting stronger as the season goes on means making the playoffs... Unless you're imagining that we lose over half the games in the first half of the season.

Maybe. It just means not getting worse, in reality. Our teams had a token hot streak early in the season.... then the league figured out our smoke/mirrors for having no defense, and we tanked as the year goes on. That doesn't portend good things for your head coach.

As for Bowlen firing him two years ago, sure... that's an option. But, reality is that he was a very loyal owner. So, he gave him a little too much rope and he hung himself. The saving grace is that at least Shanahan left a few good offensive players.

McDaniel is basically buying a foreclosed home that looks O.K. from the outside but has major issues on the inside. This thing needs to be gutted and a proper plan needs to be put in place... and it's underway.

:thumbs:

Kaylore
01-13-2009, 09:54 AM
Myth.

Go ahead and research the last 10 years, seperate the Wins and Losses by halves and post it.

Since 1999 the Broncos are 24-17 in December. Not our best but not as bad as people seem to think. We've only had one December below .500: This last one.
Unfortunately we have a lot of 2-2 December's on the books. We can definitely do better.

NFLBRONCO
01-13-2009, 09:58 AM
Don';t count on it this next year dude. It may happen but odds are stacked against big improvements in any of the areas next year.


I agree New Scheme crap on D alot to fix in one offseason. I expect struggles and a top 12 draft pick again 2010 draft. If fans expect more they are unrealistic.

BroncsRule
01-13-2009, 10:24 AM
I agree New Scheme crap on D alot to fix in one offseason. I expect struggles and a top 12 draft pick again 2010 draft. If fans expect more they are unrealistic.

I agree. Plus playing the NFC East.. New scheme on O, new terminology, new philosophy.. There are often growing pains with that sort of thing.

Total rebuild on D, with a switch to 3-4. ST needs attention too.

We are more likely to go 5-11, 4-12 than 10-6.

But hey, at least we won't be a suck .500 team anymore.

TheReverend
01-13-2009, 10:28 AM
Since 1999 the Broncos are 24-17 in December. Not our best but not as bad as people seem to think. We've only had one December below .500: This last one.
Unfortunately we have a lot of 2-2 December's on the books. We can definitely do better.

I'd guess the November stats are a little worse, but hardly enough to swing it. If I had to guess I'd say 22-19, and way too lazy to look it up. Wanna do it for me?

Kaylore
01-13-2009, 10:30 AM
I'd guess the November stats are a little worse, but hardly enough to swing it. If I had to guess I'd say 22-19, and way too lazy to look it up. Wanna do it for me?

Nope.;D

TheReverend
01-13-2009, 10:36 AM
Nope.;D

But what about the second half collapses?!?!?!?!

Do you really want to people throwing temper tantrums after their factually and blatantly incorrect accusations get left in limbo?

DenverBroncosJM
01-13-2009, 10:43 AM
Don';t count on it this next year dude. It may happen but odds are stacked against big improvements in any of the areas next year.

The Dolphins and the Falcons would like to speak with you about that.


Your right it could go either way. At this point im excited about the change but I will be here just like everyone else commiserating if it goes bad next year.

TheReverend
01-13-2009, 11:08 AM
The Dolphins and the Falcons would like to speak with you about that.


Your right it could go either way. At this point im excited about the change but I will be here just like everyone else commiserating if it goes bad next year.

The Dolphins and Falcons DID have way more solid defensive players in place. If Moss can arrive and Barrett can progress and we get Woodyard on the field, then we can have a solid foundation already in place.

As it stands, I'd like to hope we hit the FA market pretty hard.

BroncsRule
01-13-2009, 11:33 AM
But what about the second half collapses?!?!?!?!

Do you really want to people throwing temper tantrums after their factually and blatantly incorrect accusations get left in limbo?

Lazy bastages! OK - I'm curious enough to look it up, because you can count me as one of those with the preconception that Shanahn's Broncs "collapse down the stretch".

What matters to me is trends - were we "on a streak" in Oct-Nov, within striking distance of the playoffs, only to fall apart "down the stretch"?

So, here we go:

1999 6-10 Lost first 4 in a row. The infamous "we're done" season. At the midway point, we were 2-6. Went 4-4 in the second half, although we were below .500 after Dec 1 at 2-3. Null season, as we were out of playoff contention by Halloween.

2000 11-5 Griese breaks out. We go 7-1 in the second half. Wild card birth - loose to Balt. No collapse.

2001 8-8 This was a weird year. Beginning on Oct 21, we started alternating wins and losses - win one, loose one, win one, loose one all the way down the stretch. Ergo, no playoff "run" ever developed, so nothing to collapse from. We went 2-3 after Dec. 1 Finished 3rd in AFCW - no collapse

2002 9-7 finished 3-5 down the stretch after starting off 6-2. just missed playoffs despite beating AZ in week 17. Lost 3 of their last 5 after Dec 1. Collapse.

2003 10-6 this year featured 2 4 game winning streaks - one in Sept, and one after Thanksgiving. We went 5-3 in the second half, 3-1 after Dec 1. Blown out in WC by Indy. No collapse.

2004 10-6 5-3 down the stretch, including 3-2 after Dec 1. Beat Indy in week 17 to force our way into the playoffs. Crushed by Indy in WC a week later. No collapse.

2005 13-3 AFCW champs, 7-1 down the stretch, including 4 straight wins to finish. No collapse.

2006 9-7 Missed playoffs. 3-5 in the second half, incl 4 losses in a row from Nov 19 through Dec 10. L to SF in week 17 cost a playoff berth. Collapse.

2007 7-9 4-4 in the second half, but 2-3 after Dec 1. I'm gonna count this as a collapse, because we let it slip away in Dec, against fairly weak opponents. Collapse.

2008 8-8 4-4 in the second half, 1-3 after Dec 1. Epic collapse.

So - 4 collapses in 10 years, plus 2 other years where they just flat stunk all year. 6 years of sub .500 Decembers.

Popps
01-13-2009, 11:45 AM
Myth.

Go ahead and research the last 10 years, seperate the Wins and Losses by halves and post it.

Did we get worse in the 2nd half of the season this year? Yes, by record-setting proportions.

How about last year? Yep.

How about 2006? Yep.

2005 - Nope! We actually held up strong in the 2nd half.

2004 - Same record in first 8 as last 8.

2003 - Same record in first 8 as last 8.

2002 - Same record in first 8 as last 8.

2001 - Worse second half than first half

2000 - Better 2nd half than first

1999 - "Better" 2nd half than first. (3 wins instead of 2)



So, if you're willing to go back to the Plummer/Griese days... you'll find some seasons where we didn't get worse or fizzle.

However, you won't find but one playoff win, and in the past three seasons... the "rebuild" has had us getting worse ever year as the season went on.

lostknight
01-13-2009, 11:45 AM
And if Jay is still butthurt, I am sure that $80-100 million contract he's going to sign in a couple of years will help.

The problem is that if Jay doesn't get the support he feels he deserve, and the Broncos don't get support, that 80-100 million dollar contract may be with someone else. Perhaps with a new Head Coach named Mike Shanahan.

Popps
01-13-2009, 11:47 AM
But what about the second half collapses?!?!?!?!

Do you really want to people throwing temper tantrums after their factually and blatantly incorrect accusations get left in limbo?

Oh, it's not tantrums, boss. It's just relaying the factual information of our team's inability to perform in the 2nd half of a season. We finally set a record for futility this year.

But, only winning one playoff game in the past decade should tell you that story.

Al Davis and Norv Turner... the butts of thousands of jokes around here, both have more playoff wins with their teams than we do in the past ten years.

If you're happy with that kind of futility, feel free. But, most of us aren't... and Bowlen clearly wasn't.

Hence, the proper business decision has been made.

Drek
01-13-2009, 11:49 AM
Quarter of Season Stats, 1999 to 2008.

Record Offense Defense
W L Total PPG PYPG RYPG TO PPG PYG RYG TO
Q1: 25 14 39 23.21 213.67 136.72 1.59 19.67 200.15 104.49 1.64
Q2: 19 19 38 21.87 236.87 131.97 1.79 21.61 201.08 113.00 1.39
Q3: 20 14 34 24.15 220.88 121.09 1.53 21.71 231.79 85.91 2.47
Q4: 26 21 47 23.55 221.32 151.17 1.68 21.77 199.17 122.04 1.55
Total: 90 68 158 23.19 223.08 136.51 1.65 21.20 206.89 107.76 1.73

oubronco
01-13-2009, 11:50 AM
Maybe. It just means not getting worse, in reality. Our teams had a token hot streak early in the season.... then the league figured out our smoke/mirrors for having no defense, and we tanked as the year goes on. That doesn't portend good things for your head coach.

As for Bowlen firing him two years ago, sure... that's an option. But, reality is that he was a very loyal owner. So, he gave him a little too much rope and he hung himself. The saving grace is that at least Shanahan left a few good offensive players.

McDaniel is basically buying a foreclosed home that looks O.K. from the outside but has major issues on the inside. This thing needs to be gutted and a proper plan needs to be put in place... and it's underway.

:thumbs:

an interesting way of putting it but exactly the way it is........Good Post

TheReverend
01-13-2009, 11:57 AM
Did we get worse in the 2nd half of the season this year? Yes, by record-setting proportions.

How about last year? Yep.

How about 2006? Yep.

2005 - Nope! We actually held up strong in the 2nd half.

2004 - Same record in first 8 as last 8.

2003 - Same record in first 8 as last 8.

2002 - Same record in first 8 as last 8.

2001 - Worse second half than first half

2000 - Better 2nd half than first

1999 - "Better" 2nd half than first. (3 wins instead of 2)



So, if you're willing to go back to the Plummer/Griese days... you'll find some seasons where we didn't get worse or fizzle.

However, you won't find but one playoff win, and in the past three seasons... the "rebuild" has had us getting worse ever year as the season went on.


But this is what you said:

But, the reality is that this team just needs to get stronger as the season goes on, not fizzle and fail in the 2nd half, as was our MO under Shanahan for most of the last 10.

If you want to change your point, so be it. It's best to get it right the first time, though. :thumbsup:

TheReverend
01-13-2009, 12:04 PM
Quarter of Season Stats, 1999 to 2008.

Record Offense Defense
W L Total PPG PYPG RYPG TO PPG PYG RYG TO
Q1: 25 14 39 23.21 213.67 136.72 1.59 19.67 200.15 104.49 1.64
Q2: 19 19 38 21.87 236.87 131.97 1.79 21.61 201.08 113.00 1.39
Q3: 20 14 34 24.15 220.88 121.09 1.53 21.71 231.79 85.91 2.47
Q4: 26 21 47 23.55 221.32 151.17 1.68 21.77 199.17 122.04 1.55
Total: 90 68 158 23.19 223.08 136.51 1.65 21.20 206.89 107.76 1.73


Nice breakdown find, Drek!

So as far as these "second half collapses go"

Denver is 44-33 in the first half 99-08, and 46-35 in the second half 99-08.

Popps
01-13-2009, 12:06 PM
But this is what you said:

If you want to change your point, so be it. It's best to get it right the first time, though. :thumbsup:

Times we were worse in the 2nd half - 4
Times we were the same - 4
Times we were better - 2



More fizzles in there than big runs at the end.

No need to "change" any point. The facts are all there. Like I said, we set a record for 2nd half futility in the 2nd half, this year.

It's funny having this argument with you, because a few years ago... I had these same argument.... only with Raiders fans.

Using stuff we did 11 years ago as an argument for how great things are is just sad. That was Raider-fan's argument in the 90s. (We won a SB in 83!!)

But, cling to the past... be a Raiders fan, whatever. I'm moving into the future with the bright and successful ownership of this franchise who made a proper business decision at a proper time.

Kaylore
01-13-2009, 12:19 PM
Nice breakdown find, Drek!

So as far as these "second half collapses go"

Denver is 44-33 in the first half 99-08, and 46-35 in the second half 99-08.

So we actually won more games in the second half of the season then the first half.

TonyR
01-13-2009, 12:26 PM
So - 4 collapses in 10 years, plus 2 other years where they just flat stunk all year. 6 years of sub .500 Decembers.

That about sums it up for those of you who want to keep arguing the particulars. Combine that with 1 playoff win and 1 division title in the same period and you have a recipe for mediocrity that deserves a long overdue regime change.

Popps
01-13-2009, 12:28 PM
So we actually won more games in the second half of the season then the first half.

Break it down by seasons, which is a more telling stat.

Or, you could just knife through the bull**** and break it down by playoff wins, where we have been abysmal.

jhat01
01-13-2009, 12:29 PM
Lazy bastages! OK - I'm curious enough to look it up, because you can count me as one of those with the preconception that Shanahn's Broncs "collapse down the stretch".

What matters to me is trends - were we "on a streak" in Oct-Nov, within striking distance of the playoffs, only to fall apart "down the stretch"?

So, here we go:

1999 6-10 Lost first 4 in a row. The infamous "we're done" season. At the midway point, we were 2-6. Went 4-4 in the second half, although we were below .500 after Dec 1 at 2-3. Null season, as we were out of playoff contention by Halloween.

2000 11-5 Griese breaks out. We go 7-1 in the second half. Wild card birth - loose to Balt. No collapse.

2001 8-8 This was a weird year. Beginning on Oct 21, we started alternating wins and losses - win one, loose one, win one, loose one all the way down the stretch. Ergo, no playoff "run" ever developed, so nothing to collapse from. We went 2-3 after Dec. 1 Finished 3rd in AFCW - no collapse

2002 9-7 finished 3-5 down the stretch after starting off 6-2. just missed playoffs despite beating AZ in week 17. Lost 3 of their last 5 after Dec 1. Collapse.

2003 10-6 this year featured 2 4 game winning streaks - one in Sept, and one after Thanksgiving. We went 5-3 in the second half, 3-1 after Dec 1. Blown out in WC by Indy. No collapse.

2004 10-6 5-3 down the stretch, including 3-2 after Dec 1. Beat Indy in week 17 to force our way into the playoffs. Crushed by Indy in WC a week later. No collapse.

2005 13-3 AFCW champs, 7-1 down the stretch, including 4 straight wins to finish. No collapse.

2006 9-7 Missed playoffs. 3-5 in the second half, incl 4 losses in a row from Nov 19 through Dec 10. L to SF in week 17 cost a playoff berth. Collapse.

2007 7-9 4-4 in the second half, but 2-3 after Dec 1. I'm gonna count this as a collapse, because we let it slip away in Dec, against fairly weak opponents. Collapse.

2008 8-8 4-4 in the second half, 1-3 after Dec 1. Epic collapse.

So - 4 collapses in 10 years, plus 2 other years where they just flat stunk all year. 6 years of sub .500 Decembers.

Great work.

TheReverend
01-13-2009, 12:40 PM
That about sums it up for those of you who want to keep arguing the particulars. Combine that with 1 playoff win and 1 division title in the same period and you have a recipe for mediocrity that deserves a long overdue regime change.

Particulars?

'02 is a genuine "collapse" finishing 3-5 in the second half.

'06 is called a collapse because Plummer was going nowhere and we threw the rookie in.

'07 even HE barely quantifies as a "collapse" because we went 4-4 against weak opponents (by the way, that's a STRONGER 2nd half than we started), which also makes zero sense considering the team was three games out from a wildcard berth. So by his own "collapse" logic, anything less than a 2nd half of 7-1 after a 3-5 start is collapsing? Bull****.

'08 Same second half as first half. Call it an "epic collapse" as much as you want. Losing to Carolina and SD on the road were definitely the most likely scenarios. Buff was disappointing but the team didn't deserve the playoff spot anyways. So be it.

So in reality, it's more 1 3-5 "collapse" in 2002, and then up to personal discretion, but no matter how you slice it, it's a far cry from the "Shanahan's teams fall apart in the second half!"

TheReverend
01-13-2009, 12:45 PM
Times we were worse in the 2nd half - 4
Times we were the same - 4
Times we were better - 2



More fizzles in there than big runs at the end.

No need to "change" any point. The facts are all there. Like I said, we set a record for 2nd half futility in the 2nd half, this year.

It's funny having this argument with you, because a few years ago... I had these same argument.... only with Raiders fans.

Using stuff we did 11 years ago as an argument for how great things are is just sad. That was Raider-fan's argument in the 90s. (We won a SB in 83!!)

But, cling to the past... be a Raiders fan, whatever. I'm moving into the future with the bright and successful ownership of this franchise who made a proper business decision at a proper time.

I see your counting skills are even worse than your personality.

1999, 2000, 2005, 2007 were all better second halves.

So here's an accurate version without Popps tarding it up:
Times we were worse in the 2nd half - 2
Times we were the same - 4
Times we were better - 4

BroncoMan4ever
01-13-2009, 12:47 PM
I think Jeremy Bates has an incredibly keen mind for playcalling - he was a real asset for the Broncos in 2008. However, he isn't very good at teaching decision making, or working with Jay on "winning games" rather than making highlight reels. He just seems like too much "buddy" and not enough "coach."

Jay needs more discipline to win a championship. He can still be a gunslinger with a rocket arm when necessary, but he needs to look for more short routes to keep drives going. That is a quality that is very "Brady-esque" and I would really, really like to see Cutler makes strides in that area.

If McDaniels can help Cutler with that discipline, then its worth losing Bates.

i agree. i also think that Jay knew about the hiring beforehand and was ok with it, and knew there might be a chance that Bates might be let go. I think he realizes he would be trading up. He is losing his current QB coach/OC for a more talented version. Bates just wanted to keep Jay happy, not mold him into a better QB. McDaniels will coach him up to become the QB he has the potential to be.

TheReverend
01-13-2009, 12:48 PM
So we actually won more games in the second half of the season then the first half.

Absolutely. It's just one of the many urban legends detractors cling to.

Kaylore
01-13-2009, 01:47 PM
Break it down by seasons, which is a more telling stat.

Or, you could just knife through the bull**** and break it down by playoff wins, where we have been abysmal.

Then just say we haven't won enough playoff games. We really have won two because we earned the first round bye and then advanced to the AFCG. Is that enough in ten years? Not at all, but there's no need to poo-poo Shanahan any more than you have by inventing pretend flaws like we "folded in the second half" of the season.

Popps
01-13-2009, 02:29 PM
Then just say we haven't won enough playoff games. .

Oh, I've mentioned that a few times. :)

but there's no need to poo-poo Shanahan any more than you have by inventing pretend flaws like we "folded in the second half" of the season.

Again, I posted the numbers... at best, unimpressive. The past three years? Despicable.

You've been around a long time, so you know I've been a staunch Shanahan defender over the years. A lot of things were blamed on him that just weren't his fault. But, some was... much was, and when you run an organization with an iron fist, you're the person who bares the blame.

Had we shown improvement over the past few years, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But, this is a results-based league and Bowlen is a results-based owner. Any long-time Broncos fan knows that.

Hence, the proper decision was made.

Popps
01-13-2009, 02:30 PM
Absolutely. It's just one of the many urban legends detractors cling to.

Detractors? No, I'm a big Shanahan fan. But, I'm just on the reality bus.

Again, if you want to go around sounding like a Raiders fan, have at it. Just don't begrudge the rest of us who want the franchise to move forward.

TheReverend
01-13-2009, 02:33 PM
Detractors? No, I'm a big Shanahan fan. But, I'm just on the reality bus.

Again, if you want to go around sounding like a Raiders fan, have at it. Just don't begrudge the rest of us who want the franchise to move forward.

I'm not begrudging a thing, other than when you post outright lies. In this thread alone, you even took the time after I pointed it to do your research and then still posted the wrong ****.

Moving on is one thing. Making **** up another thing entirely.

Popps
01-13-2009, 02:34 PM
I see your counting skills are even worse than your personality.

1999, 2000, 2005, 2007 were all better second halves.

So here's an accurate version without Popps tarding it up:
Times we were worse in the 2nd half - 2
Times we were the same - 4
Times we were better - 4

IN 2007, we lost 4 of our last 6 games, crapped down our own legs and missed the playoffs.

True, that was a real strong finish.

Just win, baby! Commitment to excellence!

:rofl:

Popps
01-13-2009, 02:36 PM
I'm not begrudging a thing, other than when you post outright lies. In this thread alone, you even took the time after I pointed it to do your research and then still posted the wrong ****.

Moving on is one thing. Making **** up another thing entirely.

You posted yourself we have had more seasons where we were the same or worse in the 2nd half... and one of the "better" 2nd halves included us losing 4 games out of 6. STRONG!

So, let's make this easier for you... and just go with your version of the stats, O.K. Raider Rev?

TheReverend
01-13-2009, 02:46 PM
You posted yourself we have had more seasons where we were the same or worse in the 2nd half... and one of the "better" 2nd halves included us losing 4 games out of 6. STRONG!

So, let's make this easier for you... and just go with your version of the stats, O.K. Raider Rev?

No, I didn't. Because Denver didn't. Point blank. Undeniable. Fact.

You had your numbers wrong because apparently education (namely elementary school) isn't your strong suit.

4 better 2nd halves.
4 same
2 worse

Keep bangin the drum trying to perpetuate your fallacies.

TheReverend
01-13-2009, 02:47 PM
IN 2007, we lost 4 of our last 6 games, crapped down our own legs and missed the playoffs.

True, that was a real strong finish.

Just win, baby! Commitment to excellence!

:rofl:

Way to deflect away from your own inability to count single digit numbers.

2007s 2nd half won more games than the first half. True or false?

Popps
01-13-2009, 02:50 PM
Way to deflect away from your own inability to count single digit numbers.

2007s 2nd half won more games than the first half. True or false?

Absolutely true, and I conceded that point to you. We only won 2 games in the first 8, I believe? (Fantastic)

We finished with a strong 2 wins and 4 losses to blow any playoff shot.

So, if you feel like that helps you make your point, by all means... run with it.
2 wins and 4 losses is very Raideresque. Makes me want to wear face-paint and Darth Vader gear.

TheReverend
01-13-2009, 02:58 PM
Absolutely true, and I conceded that point to you. We only won 2 games in the first 8, I believe? (Fantastic)

We finished with a strong 2 wins and 4 losses to blow any playoff shot.

So, if you feel like that helps you make your point, by all means... run with it.
2 wins and 4 losses is very Raideresque. Makes me want to wear face-paint and Darth Vader gear.

Oustanding. Wrong again!

How do you do it? In one page of a thread you manage:

But, the reality is that this team just needs to get stronger as the season goes on, not fizzle and fail in the 2nd half, as was our MO under Shanahan for most of the last 10.

Wrong.

Times we were worse in the 2nd half - 4
Times we were the same - 4
Times we were better - 2

Wrong.

And now wrong again... you're the Michael Jordan of failure dude. :thumbsup:

Popps
01-13-2009, 03:23 PM
And now wrong again... you're the Michael Jordan of failure dude. :thumbsup:

Raider Rev... I've already said we'll just use your exact numbers. So, you can quit repeating yourself.

You know, the ones where you claim the 07 Broncos finished strong because they went 2-4 and crapped the playoff bed again.

Commitment to excellence, huh?

TheReverend
01-13-2009, 03:29 PM
Raider Rev... I've already said we'll just use your exact numbers. So, you can quit repeating yourself.

You know, the ones where you claim the 07 Broncos finished strong because they went 2-4 and crapped the playoff bed again.

Commitment to excellence, huh?

Oh, that's so cute. Clever too. I mean really. You're so smart.

Now as for the rest, if you could follow your OWN PART OF THE DISCUSSION, you're flat out wrong. But I understand your severe learning disabilities must be inhibiting you.

Using mono-syllabic words:

First half: 3-5
2 half: 4-4

Better?

If you want to cherry pick each season to create a collapse, so be it, two can play this game.

We finished the 2007 season 1-0! Epic turnaround!

Cito Pelon
01-13-2009, 03:49 PM
Myth.

Go ahead and research the last 10 years, seperate the Wins and Losses by halves and post it.

Myth? No.

Just to rub your nose in your own crap kid, I'll do your research for you. Us men have an obligation to show you boys how to be men, after all.

Year 1st 8 2nd 8 high point
1999 2-6 4-4 better finish than start
2000 4-4 7-1 good finish
2001 4-4 4-4 didn't finish well
2002 6-2 3-5 6-2 was the high point
2003 5-3 5-3 5-1 to start the season, finished 5-5
2004 5-3 5-3 were 5-1 and 7-3, 3-3 to close the season
2005 6-2 7-1 good finish
2006 6-2 3-5 were 7-2, finished 2-5
2007 3-5 4-4 5-5, then finished 2-4
2008 4-4 4-4 were 8-5, finished 0-3

total 45-35 46-35

TheReverend
01-13-2009, 04:04 PM
total 45-35 46-35

Like I said, "Myth"

Cito Pelon
01-13-2009, 04:23 PM
Since 1999 the Broncos are 24-17 in December. Not our best but not as bad as people seem to think. We've only had one December below .500: This last one.
Unfortunately we have a lot of 2-2 December's on the books. We can definitely do better.

After November since 1999 the Broncs are 23-23 by my count in the regular season. The Broncs have 6 below .500 seasons since 1999 after November by my count.

Popps
01-13-2009, 04:33 PM
Again, you've got people around here trying to make arguments based on meaningful games we won over 10 years ago.... and adding up regular season games trying to put a positive spin on dog****.

Have at it, boys!


http://www.geocities.com/jedivideomike2003/ChargersRaiders009.jpg

Cito Pelon
01-13-2009, 04:44 PM
I'd guess the November stats are a little worse, but hardly enough to swing it. If I had to guess I'd say 22-19, and way too lazy to look it up. Wanna do it for me?

You are one lazy bum, Rev. Ok, Dad will bail you out once again:

November record since 1999 is 23-14.

5 years over .500, 4 years .500, 1 year only (2002) sub .500 at 1-2.

Cito Pelon
01-13-2009, 04:53 PM
But what about the second half collapses?!?!?!?!

Do you really want to people throwing temper tantrums after their factually and blatantly incorrect accusations get left in limbo?

Certainly not enough second half surges since 1999. The Broncs since 1999 just didn't finish seasons strong enough. Just barely did well enough to get the last seed in the playoffs most times.

Popps
01-13-2009, 04:59 PM
Certainly not enough second half surges since 1999. The Broncs since 1999 just didn't finish seasons strong enough. Just barely did well enough to get the last seed in the playoffs most times.

Dude, that's good enough in Oakland. What's the problem?

TheReverend
01-13-2009, 05:23 PM
Certainly not enough second half surges since 1999. The Broncs since 1999 just didn't finish seasons strong enough. Just barely did well enough to get the last seed in the playoffs most times.

Okay, Cito. That's fine. Then people can pose their opinion that we haven't finished strong enough. That's certainly up to interpretation and debatable, but someone saying we collapsed under Shanahan most of the decade is horrendously inaccurate and flat out wrong. I'm sure that's something even you can agree with.

TheReverend
01-13-2009, 05:25 PM
Dude, that's good enough in Oakland. What's the problem?

This is your classic "I've been proven wrong several times, now I'll deflect by turning it into something entirely different, make stupid accusations and reduce the conversation to nothing". It's a classic Popps move. Right up there with the "Rusty Trambone" move that you perfected.

Cito Pelon
01-13-2009, 05:39 PM
Like I said, "Myth"

Actually, Dad did some bad math. Should have been '45-35 and 46-34'. Point is, son, there was only four seasons since 1999 that Denver finished better in the last 8 compared to the first 8. And there were some bad collapses after strong starts:

6-2 in 2002, ended up 9-7, finished 2-3, missed the playoffs.
5-1 in 2003, ended up 10-6, sixth seed in playoffs, got ass kicked at Indy.
5-1 and 7-3 in 2004, ended up 10-6, sixth seed in playoffs, got ass kicked at Indy.
7-2 in 2006, ended up 9-7.
5-5 in 2007, ended up 7-9.
8-5 in 2008, ended up 8-8.

Cito Pelon
01-13-2009, 05:55 PM
Dude, that's good enough in Oakland. What's the problem?

Yah, it's kind of sad some folks haven't been interested in building the Bronco legend that was established in the 70's, 80's, 90's.

Denver in 1999 was a team that was right at the top for playoff wins, Conference championships, Lombardis.

Since then many, many people have been ecstatic with plus-.500 seasons, one playoff win, one Division title, and that being the only title won.

Pretty pathetic to be satisfied with that, and defend it tooth and claw as wonderful because the Chiefs haven't done better. Whoo boy, that's pathetic.

Rohirrim
01-13-2009, 06:00 PM
A boy's best friend is his mother.






See if anybody gets that. ;D

TheReverend
01-13-2009, 06:00 PM
Actually, Dad did some bad math. Should have been '45-35 and 46-34'. Point is, son, there was only four seasons since 1999 that Denver finished better in the last 8 compared to the first 8. And there were some bad collapses after strong starts:

6-2 in 2002, ended up 9-7, finished 2-3, missed the playoffs.
5-1 in 2003, ended up 10-6, sixth seed in playoffs, got ass kicked at Indy.
5-1 and 7-3 in 2004, ended up 10-6, sixth seed in playoffs, got ass kicked at Indy.
7-2 in 2006, ended up 9-7.
5-5 in 2007, ended up 7-9.
8-5 in 2008, ended up 8-8.

And the point is, son, that there were another 4 where they finished just as good and only TWO were they finished "worse". So those "2nd half collapses" he's "known for" actually happened twice... out of 14 seasons...

Popps
01-13-2009, 06:02 PM
This is your classic "I've been proven wrong several times

Really, boss? You proved to me that we're a strong 2nd half of the season team?

Must have missed that.

Did you prove to me that we've been effective in the playoffs in the past decade?

Must have missed that, too.

Poor guy. Stuck in crabby-land. Will you cry if we win, too? You going to be the perfect Pocket-Pet for Taco and try to downplay achievements going forward?

watermock
01-13-2009, 06:03 PM
Lets see our records without Shanahan, like when Dan Reeves got fired or Wade got fired.

He's got 3 lombardis and 3 AFC rings.

Popps
01-13-2009, 06:04 PM
Yah, it's kind of sad some folks haven't been interested in building the Bronco legend that was established in the 70's, 80's, 90's..

Most of those types weren't around watching games in the late 70s and 80s, so they don't know anything else than Shanahan.

Almost 100% of the folks around here with a long history with the team are good with this move. That tells you a lot.

TheReverend
01-13-2009, 06:07 PM
Really, boss? You proved to me that we're a strong 2nd half of the season team?

Must have missed that.

Did you prove to me that we've been effective in the playoffs in the past decade?

Must have missed that, too.

Poor guy. Stuck in crabby-land. Will you cry if we win, too? You going to be the perfect Pocket-Pet for Taco and try to downplay achievements going forward?

You are beyond ****ing stupid. Go back and re-read. Several times. Until you understand. I've shown you fact by fact about how yes, you've been wrong on MULTIPLE things in this thread. I have no idea how you survived into your 40s other than some personal caretaker a rubber room and softly padded helmet, but I truly feel bad for anyone involved in your existence.

Cito Pelon
01-13-2009, 06:32 PM
Okay, Cito. That's fine. Then people can pose their opinion that we haven't finished strong enough. That's certainly up to interpretation and debatable, but someone saying we collapsed under Shanahan most of the decade is horrendously inaccurate and flat out wrong. I'm sure that's something even you can agree with.

There have been some collapses after strong starts. The overall record by halves of the season is congruent.

Me, Popps, many others are in the camp where the team has not lived up to Bronco standards set in the 70's, 80's, 90's. The team has failed by those standards in the 2000's.

One playoff win in ten seasons, that's not living up to standards. One AFCW title, that's the worst stretch since the 60's. Zero AFC titles, that's the worst stretch since the 60's.

Denver, IMO, should be right up there with Pittsburgh competing for AFC titles. These are the Denver Broncos, not some mediocre organization.

You have this mentality where just having a winning record most years is good stuff.

TheReverend
01-13-2009, 06:39 PM
There have been some collapses after strong starts. The overall record by halves of the season is congruent.

Me, Popps, many others are in the camp where the team has not lived up to Bronco standards set in the 70's, 80's, 90's. The team has failed by those standards in the 2000's.

One playoff win in ten seasons, that's not living up to standards. One AFCW title, that's the worst stretch since the 60's. Zero AFC titles, that's the worst stretch since the 60's.

Denver, IMO, should be right up there with Pittsburgh competing for AFC titles. These are the Denver Broncos, not some mediocre organization.

You have this mentality where just having a winning record most years is good stuff.

No, Cito, that's certainly not my mentality.

This post and your reason for wanting to move forward have merit. I certainly won't argue that. If you flip through this thread, the only points I've argued have been flat out uninformed or just plain lies. That's all.

I DID make an enormously lengthy post/thread where I stated fact by fact (not opinion) why I still supported Shanahan and disliked the firing. The point is moot, but it's an explanation with a factual background. If you read through that, and still disagree, then we just disagree. It's a matter of personal preference at that point.

Cito Pelon
01-13-2009, 06:52 PM
And the point is, son, that there were another 4 where they finished just as good and only TWO were they finished "worse". So those "2nd half collapses" he's "known for" actually happened twice... out of 14 seasons...

That's not good enough, kid. Denver was known as one of the most kickass organizations in the league prior to the 2000's. Denver may have lost some Lombardi competitions, but Denver owned the most AFC titles until Pittsburgh came to Mile High in 2005 and took that honor away. NE has also matched Denver for AFC titles since 1998.

Shame on Shanny and Bowlen for not building on the record for AFC Titles in the 2000's.

In Denver, if you can't win AFCW titles and AFC titles, you don't deserve to be here.

TheReverend
01-13-2009, 06:54 PM
That's not good enough, kid. Denver was known as one of the most kickass organizations in the league prior to the 2000's. Denver may have lost some Lombardi competitions, but Denver owned the most AFC titles until Pittsburgh came to Mile High in 2005 and took that honor away. NE has also matched Denver for AFC titles since 1998.

Shame on Shanny and Bowlen for not building on the record for AFC Titles in the 2000's.

In Denver, if you can't win AFCW titles and AFC titles, you don't deserve to be here.

5 of 6 came from one franchise quarterback... can't you give the new one a little patience?

Cito Pelon
01-13-2009, 07:42 PM
5 of 6 came from one franchise quarterback... can't you give the new one a little patience?

Sure, just a little. I want to see some titles, and I want to see them fast.

There's three levels of titles to grab, I'm happy with lets say 7 total titles in the next ten years. It can be a combo of 4 AFCW titles, 2 AFC titles, 1 Lombardi. It can be a combo of 5 AFCW's, 1 AFC, 1 Lombardi. I'll even be somewhat happy with 6 AFCW's and 1 AFC.

Point is, I want to see some titles and I want to see them fast. 7 total titles in the next ten years is reasonable to expect. These are the Denver Broncos, not some scrub organization.

BroncosCanada
01-13-2009, 07:49 PM
I think Jeremy Bates has an incredibly keen mind for playcalling - he was a real asset for the Broncos in 2008. However, he isn't very good at teaching decision making, or working with Jay on "winning games" rather than making highlight reels. He just seems like too much "buddy" and not enough "coach."

Jay needs more discipline to win a championship. He can still be a gunslinger with a rocket arm when necessary, but he needs to look for more short routes to keep drives going. That is a quality that is very "Brady-esque" and I would really, really like to see Cutler makes strides in that area.

If McDaniels can help Cutler with that discipline, then its worth losing Bates.

Well said. I don't often reply to posts, but this is right on the money.

baja
01-13-2009, 08:21 PM
5 of 6 came from one franchise quarterback... can't you give the new one a little patience?

I just looked at your bio and that explains a lot. Your are 27 which means you were 13 when Shanahan became the Broncos head coach. There is no way you can understand what Broncos football is because the coach you grew up with never played it.

The Broncos I fell in love with were a group of guys that never quit. They were not big names but they played for each other and for the die hard fans that supported them no matter what. They had a real home field advantage. They had swarming defenses and a pedestrian offense. Mostly they never gave up. Watching that San Diego game was an embarrassment to me. That was not Broncos football and frankly I haven seen Broncos football in years. It's like waking up after a long sleep with the firing of Shanahan I are looking forward to seeing some good old time smash mouth football in Denver once again. Reverend with all your facts and figures you really don't know shiit about the real Broncos tradition.


That will all change now, McDaniels is going to bring in that old Broncos attitude i can hear it in what he values.

I think Randy Gradishar is smiling today.

Popps
01-13-2009, 09:59 PM
I have no idea how you survived into your 40s .

40, little guy... no "s" about it.

Yep, you "proved me wrong," though. We've been a phenomenal second half team this past decade! Record collapses, 1 playoff win... less meaningful wins that the Raiders or Chargers.... yea, it's been great. We're STRONG finishers!

Great work proving me wrong. Weird that Shanahan was fired, huh? Being that we were such strong finishers and all.

Hey... before you post, let me guess: this is where you call me a big dum-dum, poo-poo, stupid-face person again?

You enjoy life there in Crabby-land, Raider Rev. Keep talking about those games your team won back in the 90s and how great you are because of it.

Popps
01-13-2009, 10:01 PM
I just looked at your bio and that explains a lot. Your are 27 which means you were 13 when Shanahan became the Broncos head coach. There is no way you can understand what Broncos football is because the coach you grew up with never played it.

The Broncos I fell in love with were a group of guys that never quit. They were not big names but they played for each other and for the die hard fans that supported them no matter what. They had a real home field advantage. They had swarming defenses and a pedestrian offense. Mostly they never gave up. Watching that San Diego game was an embarrassment to me. That was not Broncos football and frankly I haven seen Broncos football in years. It's like waking up after a long sleep with the firing of Shanahan I are looking forward to seeing some good old time smash mouth football in Denver once again. Reverend with all your facts and figures you really don't know shiit about the real Broncos tradition.


That will all change now, McDaniels is going to bring in that old Broncos attitude i can hear it in what he values.

I think Randy Gradishar is smiling today.

Great post, but by the second sentence... he was thinking about which names to call you. :rofl:

I'm going to guess fart-mouth or dummy-brain.

BroncsRule
01-13-2009, 10:19 PM
Actually, Dad did some bad math. Should have been '45-35 and 46-34'. Point is, son, there was only four seasons since 1999 that Denver finished better in the last 8 compared to the first 8. And there were some bad collapses after strong starts:

6-2 in 2002, ended up 9-7, finished 2-3, missed the playoffs.
5-1 in 2003, ended up 10-6, sixth seed in playoffs, got ass kicked at Indy.
5-1 and 7-3 in 2004, ended up 10-6, sixth seed in playoffs, got ass kicked at Indy.
7-2 in 2006, ended up 9-7.
5-5 in 2007, ended up 7-9.
8-5 in 2008, ended up 8-8.


This is better than mine - shows the lost opportunities more clearly, where I gave a pass for any year where we made the playoffs. 2003 and 2004 also felt like "collapses" when they happened, due to the terrific starts.

I concur - 6 collapses in the last 10 years.

Popps
01-13-2009, 10:22 PM
This is better than mine - shows the lost opportunities more clearly, where I gave a pass for any year where we made the playoffs. 2003 and 2004 also felt like "collapses" when they happened, due to the terrific starts.

I concur - 6 collapses in the last 10 years.

But, see... if you add up the regular season games... there are more wins than losses!

http://www.portlandmercury.com/images/blogimages/2008/06/27/r_1214610777_yay.jpg

BroncsRule
01-13-2009, 10:26 PM
REV - dude. Your parsing of "the first 8" versus "the last 8", in clear ignorance of the facts on the ground..

is why people hate statisticians.

You could have gotten a job in the Johnson Whitehouse, explaining why 15-17 casualties a week in Indochina are "acceptable losses".

Popps
01-14-2009, 12:05 AM
REV - dude. Your parsing of "the first 8" versus "the last 8", in clear ignorance of the facts on the ground..

is why people hate statisticians.

You could have gotten a job in the Johnson Whitehouse, explaining why 15-17 casualties a week in Indochina are "acceptable losses".

To be fair to Raider Rev, I threw out the first 8 v. last 8, though it clearly doesn't tell the whole story. Just a look at our 2nd half the season record coupled with playoff wins (or lack thereof) should be enough for any football fan to recognize the futility.

Again, playing math games with regular season wins and talking about games you won during the grunge movement is for teams like the Raiders. What's next, tales of our pre-season dominance?

TheReverend
01-14-2009, 04:07 AM
I just looked at your bio and that explains a lot. Your are 27 which means you were 13 when Shanahan became the Broncos head coach. There is no way you can understand what Broncos football is because the coach you grew up with never played it.

The Broncos I fell in love with were a group of guys that never quit. They were not big names but they played for each other and for the die hard fans that supported them no matter what. They had a real home field advantage. They had swarming defenses and a pedestrian offense. Mostly they never gave up. Watching that San Diego game was an embarrassment to me. That was not Broncos football and frankly I haven seen Broncos football in years. It's like waking up after a long sleep with the firing of Shanahan I are looking forward to seeing some good old time smash mouth football in Denver once again. Reverend with all your facts and figures you really don't know shiit about the real Broncos tradition.


That will all change now, McDaniels is going to bring in that old Broncos attitude i can hear it in what he values.

I think Randy Gradishar is smiling today.

So let me get this straight, I'm too young to "understand real Bronco football", but our comparably aged Head Coach is bringing it back?

Well, that makes about just as much sense as you claiming the US is coming to an end and fleeing the country.

:thumbsup:

TheReverend
01-14-2009, 04:10 AM
REV - dude. Your parsing of "the first 8" versus "the last 8", in clear ignorance of the facts on the ground..

is why people hate statisticians.

You could have gotten a job in the Johnson Whitehouse, explaining why 15-17 casualties a week in Indochina are "acceptable losses".

No, no. First of all, going by halves was not brought up by me.

Secondly, your method flat out isn't acceptable. To make any kind of numbers comparison you need to set a constant baseline. Now if you want to change that from week 8 to week 10 or 11, or anywhere you feel like, that's fine, but it needs to be constant otherwise you can twist just about anything to suit your agenda.

Lolad
01-14-2009, 06:51 AM
Even Shanahan said it in his press conference. If a new coach comes in and changes everything on the offensive side of the football they would have to be an idiot. This has been said by ALL football analyst! If it's not broken why try to fix it? We only need a RB, and that has been proven by looking @ the 1st 12-13 weeks of this season when we were top 10 in the redzone!

If he moves more to a power run, spread offense when our O-line led the league in fewest sacks. He's an idiot! I hope he watches film before he makes his decision on what he wants to bring from NE. We are NOT NE!!!

If he gets rid of any guys on the offensive side of the ball except @ RB he will be the BIGGEST IDIOT!

Like Taco said anything less then the playoffs next year and it will be a failure. We were well on our way with no RB and a defense you wouldn't bring home to your own momma.

Drek
01-14-2009, 07:13 AM
Even Shanahan said it in his press conference. If a new coach comes in and changes everything on the offensive side of the football they would have to be an idiot. This has been said by ALL football analyst! If it's not broken why try to fix it? We only need a RB, and that has been proven by looking @ the 1st 12-13 weeks of this season when we were top 10 in the redzone!

If he moves more to a power run, spread offense when our O-line led the league in fewest sacks. He's an idiot! I hope he watches film before he makes his decision on what he wants to bring from NE. We are NOT NE!!!

If he gets rid of any guys on the offensive side of the ball except @ RB he will be the BIGGEST IDIOT!

Like Taco said anything less then the playoffs next year and it will be a failure. We were well on our way with no RB and a defense you wouldn't bring home to your own momma.
We were already movin toward a power run, spread offense.

Jeremy Bates even said that they copied a lot of the newer wrinkles in the offense directly from the '07 Patriots.

Oh, and we did finish the season at a very impressive 16th in points scored! Yeah, 2nd in yardage, 16th in points. I question how successful that really was myself.

McDaniels is exactly what this offense needs. There might be an initial hump to get over but once the players adjust we'll be significantly better than the inconsistent boom or bust offense we had this season.

Lolad
01-14-2009, 07:22 AM
We were already movin toward a power run, spread offense.

Jeremy Bates even said that they copied a lot of the newer wrinkles in the offense directly from the '07 Patriots.

Oh, and we did finish the season at a very impressive 16th in points scored! Yeah, 2nd in yardage, 16th in points. I question how successful that really was myself.

McDaniels is exactly what this offense needs. There might be an initial hump to get over but once the players adjust we'll be significantly better than the inconsistent boom or bust offense we had this season.

16th in points.. yes we need a RB for the redzone.

Drek
01-14-2009, 07:23 AM
16th in points.. yes we need a RB for the redzone.

We also need a QB who doesn't play his worst football inside the 20's along with play calling that I can't predict from my couch inside said 20's.

Our red zone numbers were grossly inflated early in the season thanks to a couple smoke shows we put on horrible teams out of the gate. But this organization has had problems with red zone production this entire decade.

The best RB we had all last season was Hillis, our red zone offense still choked way too damn much when he was the feature back. And his game is perfectly suited to punching in touchdowns up the gut or getting hit on a slant pass for an easy TD.

baja
01-14-2009, 07:39 AM
So let me get this straight, I'm too young to "understand real Bronco football", but our comparably aged Head Coach is bringing it back?

Well, that makes about just as much sense as you claiming the US is coming to an end and fleeing the country.

:thumbsup:

I don't mind your youthful stupidity or even a little name calling but I would appreciate it if you would reframe from out and out lying about what I claim.

I have a place in Los Cabos just like your hero Mike Shanahan has a place in Los Cabos. I have lived and worked here part time for 20 years.

In recent years I have watched indicators that reflect a very difficult time ahead not only for the USA but for the world.

baja
01-14-2009, 07:43 AM
So let me get this straight, I'm too young to "understand real Bronco football", but our comparably aged Head Coach is bringing it back?

Well, that makes about just as much sense as you claiming the US is coming to an end and fleeing the country.

:thumbsup:

He knows football

You are most familiar with Mastermind football

Maybe you like seeing your team man handled on the field who knows.

Anyway I think it is pretty silly to use statistics to argue against what anybody with eyes to see and a television can see is true.

TheReverend
01-14-2009, 07:54 AM
I don't mind your youthful stupidity or even a little name calling but I would appreciate it if you would reframe from out and out lying about what I claim.

I have a place in Los Cabos just like your hero Mike Shanahan has a place in Los Cabos. I have lived and worked here part time for 20 years.

In recent years I have watched indicators that reflect a very difficult time ahead not only for the USA but for the world.

Your WRP posts lean quite to the contrary...but that can stay in there where it belongs.

He knows football

You are most familiar with Mastermind football

Maybe you like seeing your team man handled on the field who knows.

Anyway I think it is pretty silly to use statistics to argue against what anybody with eyes to see and a television can see is true.

I see, so we'll ignore actual quantifiable facts and focus on what Baja "sees". You got me!

Mountain Bronco
01-14-2009, 08:00 AM
To say that Mike Shannahan, uhhhummm, the only winner of super bowl titles with the Broncos doesn't play Broncos football may be the most retarded thing I have ever seen on this board. If "Broncos football" is not winning championships, then I don't want "Broncos football".

Maybe the tequila is getting to your head.

Taco John
01-14-2009, 08:15 AM
We also need a QB who doesn't play his worst football inside the 20's along with play calling that I can't predict from my couch inside said 20's.



What do you expect when you don't have a ground game that you can rely on? People pointing fingers at Jay because he was asked to throw the ball so much have tunnel vision.

Drek
01-14-2009, 09:07 AM
What do you expect when you don't have a ground game that you can rely on? People pointing fingers at Jay because he was asked to throw the ball so much have tunnel vision.

A lot of his red zone struggles came when we had Hillis doing a pretty admirable job carrying the ball.

I don't put it all on Jay's shoulders. In fact, I put most of it on the play calling by Bates. By mid-season he had tunnel vision for getting the ball to Marshall and Royal and it cost us touchdowns.

Daniel Graham in his entire time with the Patriots was a productive red zone player but since coming here he's been marginalized. Its not because of Scheffler because in NE he played opposite Watson who is a pretty comparable talent.

Peyton Hillis is a red zone all in one super back but he only got 3 red zone receptions last year.

We got real vanilla inside the red zone in all facets of the offense, it wasn't just the lack of a reliable RB.

Bates didn't spread the ball around, he went for our top two dogs and then to Scheffler and Stokley as options 2A and 2B well down the priority chain. Its a big reason why our offense went to hell in the Oakland game, because he just kept trying to force it to Marshall or Royal instead of taking the mismatches that were ripe for the taking with our other options.

Another big problem in the red zone? Brandon Marshall didn't do a good job fighting for end zone receptions at all. He let himself get marginalized and pigeon holed into a specific kind of red zone attack. Again largely on play calling if you ask me.

Jeremy Bates gets grossly overrated for what he did with a Shanahan assembled and mentored offense. He called some real good games and he's got a lot of potential, but if opposing defenses figured out how to slow Marshall and Royal we were toast. Its why we faded so hard this year, teams got a book on us and we never made an adjustment.

baja
01-14-2009, 09:24 AM
I see, so we'll ignore actual quantifiable facts and focus on what Baja "sees". You got me!

Dude that is what the product is a visual event.

The Broncos before Mike Shanahan and the Broncos during Shanny's reign are very different styles. Mike brought us two SBs and we all appreciate that but the rest of his tenure his teams have not been as much fun to watch. You have your opinion I have mine and mine is based over a longer tenure than yours, no biggie but I am entitled to my opinion and all your stats are not going to change that. I know what I enjoy.

Popps
01-14-2009, 09:31 AM
Like Taco said anything less then the playoffs next year and it will be a failure. We were well on our way with no RB and a defense you wouldn't bring home to your own momma.

Oh, Taco says that to support his argument that our inept coaching staff should have been kept on forever without any sort of standards for their job performance.

That said, with a healthy running attack we may have a chance.

What Taco doesn't mention is that the prior regime absolutely gutted our defense and left us with nothing. Zero. Nada. One aging, banged up, highly paid cornerback and a bunch of question marks outside of that.

Our defense is near the worst in the league, so when Taco talks about "playoff or failure," you have to think a little bit about how silly that statement is. We were 16th in scoring and basically have to put together a defense from scratch. Factor in a brutal schedule and where's the logic for Taco's insistence that we're a "playoff team or bust" next year?
I'll help... there IS NO logic in that statement. It's a preemptive position taken to support his flawed theory. See, if we make the playoffs next year, he can attribute it to Shanahan. If we DON'T.... then he's "right" and we shouldn't have fired Shanahan.

Popps
01-14-2009, 09:42 AM
it needs to be constant otherwise you can twist just about anything to suit your agenda.

His agenda?

I think it's fairly obvious we were a poor 2nd half team or Shanahan would still have a job. He wasn't fired because the team was playing so WELL in the 2nd half of seasons.

People tried to break it down for you using some stats, and instead of grasping the bigger picture (i.e. reality) ... you wanted to play games with numbers. The real question is... were we a strong 2nd half team the past decade, and particularly lately. Did we finish strong? Anyone with eyes and a brain knows the answer to that question.


Again, that's Raider-fan stuff, and if that's how you want to live your life, far be it from me to try to talk sense into you. I mean, I've heard about regular season games and playoff games won over a decade ago from Raiders fans around here for years. So, you'll just blend right in with them.

TheDave
01-14-2009, 09:43 AM
Like Taco said anything less then the playoffs next year and it will be a failure. We were well on our way with no RB and a defense you wouldn't bring home to your own momma.

I hate to be a downer, but people better prepare themselves... We are not making the playoffs next year. A talent-less defense in it's 1st year of the 3-4, an offense in it's first year of an entirely new scheme, and the toughest schedule I have ever seen... Sorry, but it's not going to happen.

TonyR
01-14-2009, 09:51 AM
...Factor in a brutal schedule and where's the logic for Taco's insistence that we're a "playoff team or bust" next year?


Not to mention the fact that we were a "playoff team or bust" this year. We busted and the person who should have taken the fall did. He'd played all of his "it's the D-coordinator's fault" cards.

TonyR
01-14-2009, 09:53 AM
I hate to be a downer, but people better prepare themselves... We are not making the playoffs next year. A talent-less defense in it's 1st year of the 3-4, an offense in it's first year of an entirely new scheme, and the toughest schedule I have ever seen... Sorry, but it's not going to happen.

You're very possibly correct, but I cheer myself up with the fact that things looked abysmal in both Miami and Atlanta coming into this season and they both made the playoffs. And both teams were worse last year than we were this year.

TheDave
01-14-2009, 09:57 AM
You're very possibly correct, but I cheer myself up with the fact that things looked abysmal in both Miami and Atlanta coming into this season and they both made the playoffs. And both teams were worse last year than we were this year.

Yeah, your right... and i hope that is the way it works out. Unfortunately i just can't get next seasons murderers row schedule of out of my head.

Home: Kansas City Chiefs, San Diego Chargers, Oakland Raiders, Cleveland Browns, Pittsburgh Steelers, New England Patriots, Dallas Cowboys and New York Giants.

Away: Kansas City Chiefs, San Diego Chargers, Oakland Raiders, Baltimore Ravens, Cincinnati Bengals, Indianapolis Colts, Philadelphia Eagles and Washington Redskins.

Based on that schedule 8-8 would be one hell of a good coaching job by McD and Co.

TonyR
01-14-2009, 10:05 AM
Unfortunately i just can't get next seasons murderers row schedule of out of my head.


The schedule is brutal. Everyone would be wise to manage their expectations accordingly.