PDA

View Full Version : Interesting observation from a Pats fan about our new pass happy coach.


lex
01-23-2009, 08:56 PM
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2009/01/mcdaniels_inter.html

Jared, I saw that last year right away. I knew we would have a tough time with this
16-0 thing with all the stress in the interviews and playing not to lose at times, but what got me right away was we showed the league what we were about right away as if no one could stop us. We completely gave up on the running game, no backs in the back field, and by midseason the league figured us out, and came at Brady full force. We struggled the rest of the season, becoming more of a finesse team, and not able to play well in bad weather. I knew we needed to be more physical this year and we have. Brady or no Brady, we need a running game much like we saw this year to keep the defense honest. Then if Brady lets the backs run more, tabout 40% or more, the defense has to start guessing, making him and Moss in particulary, more dangerous. Phil Simms could score with anyone, and with Parcels he became much more run oriented making him even more dangerous, at least if you want to win the big games. I agree with you. The past two years we are becoming more Peyton like and he was big in the regular season, but in his losses in 8 or so playoff games, his team avg about 12 points in those losses, and they always blamed the ir defense, and Brady's loss being a Manning like QB last year was14 points in the SB. So much for big time regular season offenses.

This guy really gets it.

Rock Chalk
01-23-2009, 09:23 PM
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2009/01/mcdaniels_inter.html



This guy really gets it.

The thing is, its kind of a myth McKid's offense were pass happy. Sure, they passed more than they ran, but not 2:1 ala Bates. In their remarkable record setting season they ran roudhly 40% of the time.

tsiguy96
01-23-2009, 09:32 PM
yea the thing is, there is a reason he kept the ZBS. its effective, it opens up the pass, and he knows he cant do better.

_Oro_
01-23-2009, 10:48 PM
New England almost won that game anyway. It looked like they were going to almost the whole game. I'll take 60/40 pass/run, 16-0 and losing the super bowl on a fluke play.

montrose
01-23-2009, 10:49 PM
The thing is, its kind of a myth McKid's offense were pass happy. Sure, they passed more than they ran, but not 2:1 ala Bates. In their remarkable record setting season they ran roudhly 40% of the time.

44% of the time actually. 49% this season. For comparison, the Broncos ran 39% of the time this year.

Cosmo
01-23-2009, 10:56 PM
yea the thing is, there is a reason he kept the ZBS. its effective, it opens up the pass, and he knows he cant do better.


I think its more about leaving in tact the most successful part of our team.....The O-line.

AbileneBroncoFan
01-23-2009, 11:22 PM
New England almost won that game anyway. It looked like they were going to almost the whole game. I'll take 60/40 pass/run, 16-0 and losing the super bowl on a fluke play.

Amen. Heck of a lot better than losing 3-4 games we should easily win every year. cough...Raiders...cough

chrisp
01-23-2009, 11:22 PM
New England almost won that game anyway. It looked like they were going to almost the whole game. I'll take 60/40 pass/run, 16-0 and losing the super bowl on a fluke play.

It was a close game for sure, and without some key 3rd- and 4th- down conversions the Giants would have been sunk. The way these games tend to go is that when a defense shuts down a high-powered offense they rarely do it for the whole game, they just do it for enough of the game to get their noses in front. Usually by the end of the game the offense is scoring again and its a race against time.

I do however firmly believe that a truly great offense can do it all. I'd love us to be a pass-happy offense that is capable of going to somewhere like Pittsburgh in the playoffs and suddenly start grinding it out on the ground. thing is, most defenses in the playoffs are pretty adept at taking the run away - that's why they're in the playoffs...

AbileneBroncoFan
01-23-2009, 11:42 PM
Yeah, that pass happy team that "didn't" run always beats San Diego's ass when it really matters. Better than I can say for us lately. Until we start doing that consistently, it's not going to matter what else we do. That being said, are we going to complain if Cutler puts up a 4800 yard, 50 TD season? Do we really think that the ball should've been in the hands of whoever we started at RB down the stretch just as often as Cutler/Marshall/Royal's? You can dictate your philosophy of a power running game, west coast, or whatever, but I'll tell you right now the best philosophy is a lot more simple than that: put the ball in the hand's of your best players early and often. If your QB can throw for 350 yards and 5 TDs against a team, by all means, do it. If your RB can run for 200 and 3 TDs, do it. Do whatever works on both sides of the ball until the opponents can prove otherwise.

BroncoMan4ever
01-23-2009, 11:53 PM
i have no problem with jay throwing the ball over 500 times this year, if we also run the ball about 400 times at an average of around 5 ypc. it would be kind of a 60-40 pass to run ratio. enough to showcase Jay's arm and our aeriel attack, but enough balance from the running game that it keep defenses from being able to just play the pass.

lex
01-24-2009, 05:59 AM
New England almost won that game anyway. It looked like they were going to almost the whole game. I'll take 60/40 pass/run, 16-0 and losing the super bowl on a fluke play.


During that whole season, I always had the feeling that not cultivating a running game would bit them in the ass. And it did. New England lost that SB because their offense let them down. They eventually faced a team who could exploit their lack of dimension and boy did they. "Almost won the game..." LOL. Thats a bunch of nonsense since we're talking about the shortcomings of New Englands offense. In spite of all the points they scored, it failed because it lacked dimension when they needed it.

lex
01-24-2009, 06:01 AM
Yeah, that pass happy team that "didn't" run always beats San Diego's ass when it really matters. Better than I can say for us lately. Until we start doing that consistently, it's not going to matter what else we do. That being said, are we going to complain if Cutler puts up a 4800 yard, 50 TD season? Do we really think that the ball should've been in the hands of whoever we started at RB down the stretch just as often as Cutler/Marshall/Royal's? You can dictate your philosophy of a power running game, west coast, or whatever, but I'll tell you right now the best philosophy is a lot more simple than that: put the ball in the hand's of your best players early and often. If your QB can throw for 350 yards and 5 TDs against a team, by all means, do it. If your RB can run for 200 and 3 TDs, do it. Do whatever works on both sides of the ball until the opponents can prove otherwise.


Our shortcoming wasnt so much a tactical one on the offensive side of the ball in those losses vs San Diego. Thats what is being discussed. Try to follow the bouncing ball and keep things relevant.

theAPAOps5
01-24-2009, 06:45 AM
This just in Lex is a complete failure regarding football......

Mediator12
01-24-2009, 06:46 AM
During that whole season, I always had the feeling that not cultivating a running game would bit them in the ass. And it did. New England lost that SB because their offense let them down. They eventually faced a team who could exploit their lack of dimension and boy did they. "Almost won the game..." LOL. Thats a bunch of nonsense since we're talking about the shortcomings of New Englands offense. In spite of all the points they scored, it failed because it lacked dimension when they needed it.

I think that is another gross overexaggeration. It is a one game sample. It did not hurt them in the last game of the year against the giants. That was an Epic battle where both teams put up 30+ points.

In a one game take all situation, where the teams have just played each other in the last 4 weeks, To presume that your premise is the reason anyone won or lost the game is simply not proveable. There were a ton of factors that impacted that game.

What is apparent is you think Mcdaniels can not adjust his philosophy to his team. I call BS. He ran 2 distinctly different style offenses with 2 differently talented QB's in NE the last 2 years to much success. He used what he had and the adjusted on the fly this year. I think he will design an offense built around what he thinks DEN can do best, not what NE used to do. He might use the same system, he might not. That reamins to be seen. However, he will use what DEN does best to design what he does here.

_Oro_
01-24-2009, 06:56 AM
During that whole season, I always had the feeling that not cultivating a running game would bit them in the ass. And it did. New England lost that SB because their offense let them down. They eventually faced a team who could exploit their lack of dimension and boy did they. "Almost won the game..." LOL. Thats a bunch of nonsense since we're talking about the shortcomings of New Englands offense. In spite of all the points they scored, it failed because it lacked dimension when they needed it.

You make it sound as if New England got dominated in that game. They were winning the whole game and it came down to a last minute drive with a last minute catch by some guy who thought he was possessed by the devil. On another note, if New England had kept Daniel Graham they probably would have won by 3 touchdowns. Now we have him plus we're going to have a better 0-line.
I love a great defense, I absolutely do, but the recent teams that come to mind when I think dynasty are Montana's 49ers, Aikman's Cowboys, and Brady's patriots. All those teams dominated with their offense and that's what Pat Bowlen wants to build and that's why he hired Ronald Mcdonald.

colonelbeef
01-24-2009, 07:11 AM
Since when was Phil Simms able to "score with anyone"? He was a competent QB but hardly a scoring machine.

Bates had to throw a lot this year. We had 7 MOTHERFARKING RB's ON IR. That was not the plan going into the season. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

Dedhed
01-24-2009, 07:15 AM
I think we should worry about winning the little games before we start talking about whether McDaniels' system will hold up in the SB. In case people haven't noticed, we haven't played in a big game in a long time.

_Oro_
01-24-2009, 07:17 AM
I think we should worry about winning the little games before we start talking about whether McDaniels' system will hold up in the SB. In case people haven't noticed, we haven't played in a big game in a long time.

Thanks Debbie :)

Rock Chalk
01-24-2009, 07:23 AM
Since when was Phil Simms able to "score with anyone"? He was a competent QB but hardly a scoring machine.

Bates had to throw a lot this year. We had 7 MOTHERFARKING RB's ON IR. That was not the plan going into the season. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

Dude you havent had one good post since you got here.

Bates had a 2:1 pass to run ration BEFORE A SINGLE ****ING RB got hurt.

Dedhed
01-24-2009, 07:23 AM
Thanks Debbie :)

Have all of your 59 posts been so profound and rife with intelligence?

2KBack
01-24-2009, 07:36 AM
I love a great defense, I absolutely do, but the recent teams that come to mind when I think dynasty are Montana's 49ers, Aikman's Cowboys, and Brady's patriots. All those teams dominated with their offense and that's what Pat Bowlen wants to build and that's why he hired Ronald Mcdonald.

You were doing okay until this nugget. Offense may be what people remember about these teams later, but that is simply the nature of the game. Successful offenses always get the media glory on balanced teams. Here's some rankings for you.

Dallas:5,2,3,3
SF: 2,1,8,3,6
NE: 6,1,2,4

those are the scoring Defense rankings during those teams best years. Many times there were even higher rankings than their offenses. Especially the Pats, who were only known for their defense for the first half of their run. You want a dominant team, you need a very good/great defense. You want to gamble on getting hot one year and maybe making a miracle run, then you try dominanting on one side.

Cito Pelon
01-24-2009, 07:48 AM
Yeah, that pass happy team that "didn't" run always beats San Diego's ass when it really matters. Better than I can say for us lately. Until we start doing that consistently, it's not going to matter what else we do. That being said, are we going to complain if Cutler puts up a 4800 yard, 50 TD season? Do we really think that the ball should've been in the hands of whoever we started at RB down the stretch just as often as Cutler/Marshall/Royal's? You can dictate your philosophy of a power running game, west coast, or whatever, but I'll tell you right now the best philosophy is a lot more simple than that: put the ball in the hand's of your best players early and often. If your QB can throw for 350 yards and 5 TDs against a team, by all means, do it. If your RB can run for 200 and 3 TDs, do it. Do whatever works on both sides of the ball until the opponents can prove otherwise.

One of the biggest improvements McD can make is in ST's. Shanny would have had a lot more success from '99-'08 if his ST's were even at League average. Shanny never did put together a solid three-phase team in those years. He tried like crazy, no doubt about that, but didn't get it done.

The Joker
01-24-2009, 07:49 AM
Dynasties are built on great defenses and great QB's.

You need a defense that will keep you in games even if your offense struggles at points, which generally will happen at some point in the January weather. Then a quarterback who can win it for you when you need one important drive in the final moments of a game, which will also generally happen at some point in your playoff run.

I wouldn't worry about the Pats losing that Superbowl as some indictment of McDaniels' offense. Sometimes two really good teams go head to head and both play well, and one team has to lose. It's the nature of football, on another day that goes the Pats way.

Also, anyone remember the AFCCG against the Chargers? In the wind where Brady threw 3 picks and barely threw for 200 yards? Second half they ran Maroney all over San Diego, and that won them the game. He had 122 yards on 25 carries, hardly a bad return in a Championship game against a very good Charger defense was it?

CEH
01-24-2009, 08:43 AM
During that whole season, I always had the feeling that not cultivating a running game would bit them in the ass. And it did. New England lost that SB because their offense let them down. They eventually faced a team who could exploit their lack of dimension and boy did they. "Almost won the game..." LOL. Thats a bunch of nonsense since we're talking about the shortcomings of New Englands offense. In spite of all the points they scored, it failed because it lacked dimension when they needed it.

"They eventually faced a team:" - correct in Week 17 and laid 38 on them.

lex
01-24-2009, 08:47 AM
"They eventually faced a team:" - correct in Week 17 and laid 38 on them.


You know not of what you speak. I heard Spagnuolo himself say that they knew they would be ok in the SB judging by the first game and how they didnt show NE everything. Nice try.

lex
01-24-2009, 08:49 AM
Dynasties are built on great defenses and great QB's.

You need a defense that will keep you in games even if your offense struggles at points, which generally will happen at some point in the January weather. Then a quarterback who can win it for you when you need one important drive in the final moments of a game, which will also generally happen at some point in your playoff run.

I wouldn't worry about the Pats losing that Superbowl as some indictment of McDaniels' offense. Sometimes two really good teams go head to head and both play well, and one team has to lose. It's the nature of football, on another day that goes the Pats way.

Also, anyone remember the AFCCG against the Chargers? In the wind where Brady threw 3 picks and barely threw for 200 yards? Second half they ran Maroney all over San Diego, and that won them the game. He had 122 yards on 25 carries, hardly a bad return in a Championship game against a very good Charger defense was it?

Where was that in the SB? Again, McDaniels is too pass happy. And when he does run everything flows through the WR screen and half of his runs are out of the SG.

Archer81
01-25-2009, 11:11 AM
This past season they ran is like 513 times and passed 534. Thats nearly 50-50. I think he goes with what works the best.


:Broncos:

Inkana7
01-25-2009, 11:13 AM
During that whole season, I always had the feeling that not cultivating a running game would bit them in the ass. And it did. New England lost that SB because their offense let them down. They eventually faced a team who could exploit their lack of dimension and boy did they. "Almost won the game..." LOL. Thats a bunch of nonsense since we're talking about the shortcomings of New Englands offense. In spite of all the points they scored, it failed because it lacked dimension when they needed it.

Maroney ran all over the Chargers when Brady was having a terrible day throwing. The run game won them the AFC Championship.

Inkana7
01-25-2009, 11:14 AM
Where was that in the SB? Again, McDaniels is too pass happy. And when he does run everything flows through the WR screen and half of his runs are out of the SG.

Half his runs are out of shotgun? Really, why do you keep spouting off this nonsense? When they carved us up for 300 rushing yards this year, was that all out of shotgun? No.

Archer81
01-25-2009, 11:18 AM
Where was that in the SB? Again, McDaniels is too pass happy. And when he does run everything flows through the WR screen and half of his runs are out of the SG.


Giants had a suspect secondary, but a very solid run defense. It would have been easier to exploit the Giants DB's with Moss and Welker et all then try to force a run game. NY played fantastically in the secondary. That happens sometimes.


:Broncos:

NFLBRONCO
01-25-2009, 11:30 AM
If we do better in red zone score more points per game I don't care what our pass run ratio is. Its all about production and what we do with the ball when we are on offense. We had 7 RB's on IR so I understand our dip in production but, we still had chances to do better on O and we didn't. Yes our D is biggest problem but, I think our O needs upgrades as well. I hope Josh adds more firepower to it. Then use 80% of his effort on D.

Spider
01-25-2009, 11:32 AM
Pass Happy ? you work with what you got .... you use your best tools , if you got brady , you use him , put all the points on the board you can ....... Meh..

Paladin
01-25-2009, 11:39 AM
In the Post this morning (Woodie's column) McD is quoted as saying that he was meeting with all the coaches next week to go over all the players and begin developing the "scheme" based on the talent they have. I take that to mean he will do what the players can do.

My guess is that he will decide whether they will do a 3-4 a 4-3 or a hybrid depending upon Nolan's ideas of what the D players can do. Also, it is likely the first of the draft planning meetings with Goodman, et al. To try and speculate what McD will do is okay, but I would be surprised if anyone here really knows what he will actually do. Problem is that I am not sure that all players had their best year last year and that only the O players will stand out.

I am in the 50-50 crowd. I think the game is played and won on both sides of the ball with STs setting up the table. But in plays from scrimmage, I think balance between run and pass is the better mix. A decent D gives the O's problems. But a good O stretches the Ds. That's the game......

Spider
01-25-2009, 11:40 AM
In the Post this morning (Woodie's column) McD is quoted as saying that he was meeting with all the coaches next week to go over all the players and begin developing the "scheme" based on the talent they have. I take that to mean he will do what the players can do.

My guess is that he will decide whether they will do a 3-4 a 4-3 or a hybrid depending upon Nolan's ideas of what the D players can do. Also, it is likely the first of the draft planning meetings with Goodman, et al. To try and speculate what McD will do is okay, but I would be surprised if anyone here really knows what he will actually do. Problem is that I am not sure that all players had their best year last year and that only the O players will stand out.

I am in the 50-50 crowd. I think the game is played and won on both sides of the ball with STs setting up the table. But in plays from scrimmage, I think balance between run and pass is the better mix. A decent D gives the O's problems. But a good O stretches the Ds. That's the game......

exactly ..lex is just being Lex .Some one should give Lex a bright shiny object to play with

400HZ
01-25-2009, 11:44 AM
Dynasties are built on great defenses and great QB's.

You need a defense that will keep you in games even if your offense struggles at points, which generally will happen at some point in the January weather. Then a quarterback who can win it for you when you need one important drive in the final moments of a game, which will also generally happen at some point in your playoff run.

I wouldn't worry about the Pats losing that Superbowl as some indictment of McDaniels' offense. Sometimes two really good teams go head to head and both play well, and one team has to lose. It's the nature of football, on another day that goes the Pats way.

Also, anyone remember the AFCCG against the Chargers? In the wind where Brady threw 3 picks and barely threw for 200 yards? Second half they ran Maroney all over San Diego, and that won them the game. He had 122 yards on 25 carries, hardly a bad return in a Championship game against a very good Charger defense was it?

That wasn't the only game where they came out with 3 tight ends and ran the ball down the opposing team's throat either. Their offense was remarkably versatile when it needed to be. McDaniel's mistake in the Superbowl was not adjusting his protection scheme when he needed to. Of course, that's not simple to do when Strahan, Osi, and Tuck are all amped up and playing out of their minds.

Karenin
01-25-2009, 12:12 PM
McDaniel's "mistake?" He was one incredibly lucky fluke play away from having a 19-0 season and he did have the best offense of all time.

I know it's fun to pretend you know more about football than an incredibly accomplished offensive coordinator, but you don't.

lex
01-25-2009, 12:51 PM
McDaniel's "mistake?" He was one incredibly lucky fluke play away from having a 19-0 season and he did have the best offense of all time.

I know it's fun to pretend you know more about football than an incredibly accomplished offensive coordinator, but you don't.

His offense only scored 14 points. He was counting on someone else's defense to save his bacon. Or are you giving McDaniels credit for NE's defense too? Please. Get your weak **** out of here. Come back when you actually have something relevant to say.

Karenin
01-25-2009, 12:55 PM
I wasn't even talking to you. Try to keep up you ****ing idiot.

WolfpackGuy
01-25-2009, 01:10 PM
The Giants front four won that game.
Brady wasn't used to getting hit like that, and it showed.

lex
01-25-2009, 01:14 PM
I wasn't even talking to you. Try to keep up you ****ing idiot.


I was responding to your inane point. Try to say something thats somewhat significant and/or relevant you twit.

lex
01-25-2009, 01:16 PM
The Giants front four won that game.
Brady wasn't used to getting hit like that, and it showed.


Yup. And it happened because they insisted on dying by the pass. If they had more balance it would have been far less likely the front 4 could have pinned their ears back as they did. But Josh's love for the pass was a fast ball right down the middle...it totally played to the Giants strength.

enjolras
01-25-2009, 02:17 PM
"Almost won the game..." LOL. Thats a bunch of nonsense since we're talking about the shortcomings of New Englands offense. In spite of all the points they scored, it failed because it lacked dimension when they needed it.

This conversation would be VERY different if Asante Samuel had made a relatively routine interception.

lex
01-25-2009, 02:36 PM
This conversation would be VERY different if Asante Samuel had made a relatively routine interception.


How? That wouldnt change the fact that an offense that was averaging 30 someting points was held to 14 and almost lost because of it. It allowed NYG to pin their ears back and this kept them in the game.

Killericon
01-25-2009, 02:38 PM
What are you guys even arguing about?

Drek
01-25-2009, 02:45 PM
That wasn't the only game where they came out with 3 tight ends and ran the ball down the opposing team's throat either. Their offense was remarkably versatile when it needed to be. McDaniel's mistake in the Superbowl was not adjusting his protection scheme when he needed to. Of course, that's not simple to do when Strahan, Osi, and Tuck are all amped up and playing out of their minds.

That pretty much sums up the last SB.

The "someone did something to win the game AND someone did something to lose the game." mindset is completely without merit more often than not. There isn't an OL in HISTORY that could've dominated the front four (talent and scheme) that the Giants threw at the Pats last year and the Giants still needed a list minute drive to win.

The lack of perspective people take away from games like that is astounding. The Giants had a unquestionable first ballot HOF DE in Strahan, still pretty much in his prime, along with one of the preeminent pass rushers of the last few years in Umenyora, and a 3rd guy who came up big last year and has followed it up with another stellar season this year in Tuck. Not to mention an all around very solid front seven to back them up and CBs having the best games of their lives. The Pats were a great offense but they happened to play one of the best 4-3 fronts in NFL history.

The lesson people should be taking away from that game is to build through the lines. Not run the ball more/pass less. Get elite talent on the lines because when you get to the big games you're going to face elite talent on the lines. If your big boys get whipped by the other team's big boys every single snap then your chances of winning get a whole lot slimmer a whole lot faster than any other cause > effect relationship in the NFL (besides turnovers of course).

lex
01-25-2009, 03:00 PM
That pretty much sums up the last SB.

The "someone did something to win the game AND someone did something to lose the game." mindset is completely without merit more often than not. There isn't an OL in HISTORY that could've dominated the front four (talent and scheme) that the Giants threw at the Pats last year and the Giants still needed a list minute drive to win.

The lack of perspective people take away from games like that is astounding. The Giants had a unquestionable first ballot HOF DE in Strahan, still pretty much in his prime, along with one of the preeminent pass rushers of the last few years in Umenyora, and a 3rd guy who came up big last year and has followed it up with another stellar season this year in Tuck. Not to mention an all around very solid front seven to back them up and CBs having the best games of their lives. The Pats were a great offense but they happened to play one of the best 4-3 fronts in NFL history.

The lesson people should be taking away from that game is to build through the lines. Not run the ball more/pass less. Get elite talent on the lines because when you get to the big games you're going to face elite talent on the lines. If your big boys get whipped by the other team's big boys every single snap then your chances of winning get a whole lot slimmer a whole lot faster than any other cause > effect relationship in the NFL (besides turnovers of course).

This post is as pompous as it is dumb. LOL. OK, lets back up for a second. Once again, a nonsensical comment about "almost winning". McDaniels coordinated the offense, not their defense. His matchup was against New Yorks defensive coordinator. Did NYG have a good defensive line? Yes. This wasnt a surprise, which is what made it an incredible act of hubris to insist on passing as McDaniels did. New England did little to nothing to slow down the pass rush. And thats why NYG could pin their ears back. If Umenyiora and Strahan have to respect the run, its not so easy to run upfield to get to the QB. But NE was in love with the pass and lost because of it. This was the game that NE needed to step up and scheme a running game but they didnt.

BroncoInferno
01-25-2009, 03:09 PM
This post is as pompous as it is dumb. LOL. OK, lets back up for a second. Once again, a nonsensical comment about "almost winning". McDaniels coordinated the offense, not their defense. His matchup was against New Yorks defensive coordinator. Did NYG have a good defensive line? Yes. This wasnt a surprise, which is what made it an incredible act of hubris to insist on passing as McDaniels did. New England did little to nothing to slow down the pass rush. And thats why NYG could pin their ears back. If Umenyiora and Strahan have to respect the run, its not so easy to run upfield to get to the QB. But NE was in love with the pass and lost because of it. This was the game that NE needed to step up and scheme a running game but they didnt.

Are you really stupid enough to use a one game sample to prove some inane point? McDaniels probably didn't have the right gameplan in the Super Bowl. That one game makes him a bad coach? And you keep insisting on calling him pass happy desspite of the fact that the Pats were nearly 50/50 this season. Taking that one game and disregarding the rest of McDaniels resume running the Pats offense--which is quite impressive--is absurd.

oubronco
01-25-2009, 03:09 PM
the Giants were just better that day PERIOD

lex
01-25-2009, 03:10 PM
Are you really stupid enough to use a one game sample to prove some inane point? McDaniels probably didn't have the right gameplan in the Super Bowl. That one game makes him a bad coach? And you keep insisting on calling him pass happy desspite of the fact that the Pats were nearly 50/50 this season. Taking that one game and disregarding the rest of McDaniels resume running the Pats offense--which is quite impressive--is absurd.

Balance in an offense is good is inane? Its hardly inane when you consider the degree with which everyone is so enamored with the Patriots offense. Do you even know what youre saying? Come back when you have a better mastery of word usage.

BroncoInferno
01-25-2009, 03:15 PM
Balance in an offense is good is inane? Its hardly inane when you consider the degree with which everyone is so enamored with the Patriots offense. Do you even know what youre saying? Come back when you have a better mastery of word usage.

It is inane because you ignore this past season when the Pats had nearly a 50/50 run/pass balance. It is inane because your entire argument is centered around the failing of a single game, ignoring the rest of his overwhelming success as Pats OC. Come back when you have intellectual capacity to consider McDaniels history in its entirety.

Tombstone RJ
01-25-2009, 03:18 PM
I was responding to your inane point. Try to say something thats somewhat significant and/or relevant you twit.

Ladies, ladies please. No need to throw insults, let's be civil here....

Ray Finkle
01-25-2009, 04:18 PM
This post is as pompous as it is dumb. LOL. OK, lets back up for a second. Once again, a nonsensical comment about "almost winning". McDaniels coordinated the offense, not their defense. His matchup was against New Yorks defensive coordinator. Did NYG have a good defensive line? Yes. This wasnt a surprise, which is what made it an incredible act of hubris to insist on passing as McDaniels did. New England did little to nothing to slow down the pass rush. And thats why NYG could pin their ears back. If Umenyiora and Strahan have to respect the run, its not so easy to run upfield to get to the QB. But NE was in love with the pass and lost because of it. This was the game that NE needed to step up and scheme a running game but they didnt.

Lex, do you ever not have something to bitch about? Really, you don't like this, you don't like that. You are always trying to shout that the Emperor does not have clothes....You know what? If you point out all the negative things all the time, 1/2 the time you will be right and miserable for it.

oubronco
01-25-2009, 04:26 PM
Lex, do you ever not have something to b**** about? Really, you don't like this, you don't like that. You are always trying to shout that the Emperor does not have clothes....You know what? If you point out all the negative things all the time, 1/2 the time you will be right and miserable for it.

LOL ROFL!

Br0nc0Buster
01-25-2009, 05:12 PM
yes the Patriots did not win every game when McDaniels was the coordinator.

Everyone knows that if the Pats would of run the ball every play they would of won the game 64-2

Bronx33
01-25-2009, 05:16 PM
Lex, do you ever not have something to b**** about? Really, you don't like this, you don't like that. You are always trying to shout that the Emperor does not have clothes....You know what? If you point out all the negative things all the time, 1/2 the time you will be right and miserable for it.

That's what happens when one starts every response with ( you're so stupid or this post is dumb) ect ect

rastaman
01-25-2009, 05:47 PM
the Giants were just better that day PERIOD

Better and lucky!!! The WR made a miraculous catch with the ball on top of his helmut, and of course Eli just threw the ball up for grabs......takes a little bit of luck to win a SB. Luck was on the Giants side.

lex
01-25-2009, 06:05 PM
yes the Patriots did not win every game when McDaniels was the coordinator.

Everyone knows that if the Pats would of run the ball every play they would of won the game 64-2

No, thats not it...but then what am I saying...youre from Kansas.

lex
01-25-2009, 06:06 PM
Lex, do you ever not have something to b**** about? Really, you don't like this, you don't like that. You are always trying to shout that the Emperor does not have clothes....You know what? If you point out all the negative things all the time, 1/2 the time you will be right and miserable for it.

I know I complain a lot. But the flip side of that is the blind adulation that you see from so many others. Im the other side of that coin. I dont acquiesce out of blind hope like some.

Inkana7
01-25-2009, 06:08 PM
I know I complain a lot. But the flip side of that is the blind adulation that you see from so many others. Im the other side of that coin. I dont acquiesce out of blind hope like some.

Right, you're the voice of truth and reason on this site. The ying to the rest of the Mane's yang. A real hero, you.

lex
01-25-2009, 06:09 PM
Right, you're the voice of truth and reason on this site. The ying to the rest of the Mane's yang. A real hero, you.


Indeed.

theAPAOps5
01-25-2009, 06:15 PM
Lex not sure if you still have me on ignore here. But why not share your Ides of January Mock over here. That was a really nice Mock Draft.

Someone quote me so he sees this. Seriously it was an intriguing Mock.

azbroncfan
01-25-2009, 06:22 PM
Lex not sure if you still have me on ignore here. But why not share your Ides of January Mock over here. That was a really nice Mock Draft.

Someone quote me so he sees this. Seriously it was an intriguing Mock.

Lex this is for you.

Dedhed
01-25-2009, 06:24 PM
I know I complain a lot. But the flip side of that is the blind adulation that you see from so many others. Im the other side of that coin. I dont acquiesce out of blind hope like some.

Is whining for the sake of blind cynicism any different than acquiescing out of blind hope?

Seems both lack the ability to see the truth. But if you take pride in that, go right ahead.

lex
01-25-2009, 06:25 PM
Is whining for the sake of blind cynicism any different than acquiescing out of blind hope?

Seems both lack the ability to see the truth. But if you take pride in that, go right ahead.
"Ability to see the truth"...like some euphemism that makes you feel better.

Br0nc0Buster
01-25-2009, 06:27 PM
No, thats not it...but then what am I saying...youre from Kansas.

Right, because everyone from Kansas is stupid.
This kind of ad hominem style you got I can only assume is some sort of crutch you fall back on when you have nothing intelligent to add.

I know what you are doing.
You are bitching for the sake of bitching.
If you are going to whine and post every article and testimony you find attempting to discredit our current coach, I should at least be able to offer my opinion.

But apparently it doesnt matter, because I am from Kansas.....

lex
01-25-2009, 06:43 PM
Right, because everyone from Kansas is stupid.
This kind of ad hominem style you got I can only assume is some sort of crutch you fall back on when you have nothing intelligent to add.

I know what you are doing.
You are b****ing for the sake of b****ing.
If you are going to whine and post every article and testimony you find attempting to discredit our current coach, I should at least be able to offer my opinion.

But apparently it doesnt matter, because I am from Kansas.....
No a trend was identified long ago with how a lot of KS guys like to resort to a particular tactic when in arguments. I think you were one of them as I recall. You should know better than to put on this "ad hominem...Ive been wronged" front.

Ray Finkle
01-25-2009, 06:48 PM
I know I complain a lot. But the flip side of that is the blind adulation that you see from so many others. Im the other side of that coin. I dont acquiesce out of blind hope like some.

True but when you are negative about everything, you get ignored (not put on ignore but people skip your posts). It was like how Bloodysunday used to be, he would posts only negative things and would then get bitchy when people opposed.

Do I like everything that happened this year? No, I understand why Shanahan was fired, I understand why McD was sought. Am I going to bash it without giving it 2 years atleast? No.

Not every team has the results the Dolphins and Falcons had. Besides, that is only 1 year, I see both teams crashing down to earth next year. When Mike first took the team over, it took him 3 years to get to the superbowl. Now everyone wants immediate gratification, that does not always happen.

lex
01-25-2009, 06:55 PM
True but when you are negative about everything, you get ignored (not put on ignore but people skip your posts). It was like how Bloodysunday used to be, he would posts only negative things and would then get b****y when people opposed.

You must assume this bothers me. Just know that it doesnt. If you know that Im negative, then you should also know by now that there are only a few on here that I truly respect. A lot of the posters are clutter. I do the same thing to a lot of them.


Do I like everything that happened this year? No, I understand why Shanahan was fired, I understand why McD was sought. Am I going to bash it without giving it 2 years atleast? No.

You should. Its your choice but why two years? Why should he even get one? He's come in with big ideas and is replacing a HOF coach. Bowlen went against 76% of the people who funded his new stadium in making this hire. Theres nothing wrong with having expectations in return.

Not every team has the results the Dolphins and Falcons had. Besides, that is only 1 year, I see both teams crashing down to earth next year. When Mike first took the team over, it took him 3 years to get to the superbowl. Now everyone wants immediate gratification, that does not always happen.

The Falcons had a rookie QB and the Dolphins had a apt but less talented QB and had to completely turn over their defense as well. Plus they played in a division where a team in their division finished 11-5 and didnt make the playoffs. Sorry but 2 years is way too nice. He needs to have his **** together out of the blocks.

Tombstone RJ
01-25-2009, 07:09 PM
Is whining for the sake of blind cynicism any different than acquiescing out of blind hope?

Seems both lack the ability to see the truth. But if you take pride in that, go right ahead.

wow, nice post.:thumbs:

Br0nc0Buster
01-25-2009, 07:11 PM
No a trend was identified long ago with how a lot of KS guys like to resort to a particular tactic when in arguments. I think you were one of them as I recall. You should know better than to put on this "ad hominem...Ive been wronged" front.

I have no idea what you are talking about.
I think you have me confused with someone else, or are full of ****

But I dont see how suggesting houses and cars are made out of sod in Kansas accomplishes anything productive if you are in a situation where someone insults you.
I saw you tell that to someone who was from Kansas one time.

Oh and you dont have to reply to an ad hominem with another ad hominem.....

lex
01-25-2009, 07:18 PM
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I think you have me confused with someone else, or are full of ****

But I dont see how suggesting houses and cars are made out of sod in Kansas accomplishes anything productive if you are in a situation where someone insults you.
I saw you tell that to someone who was from Kansas one time.

Oh and you dont have to reply to an ad hominem with another ad hominem.....

I knew it! LOL.

Tombstone RJ
01-25-2009, 07:25 PM
I knew it! LOL.

you knew what? you knew that you knew something, but you didn't know how to say it?

what gives lex, are you going all :curtsey: on us?

Paladin
01-25-2009, 07:35 PM
The Giants front four won that game.
Brady wasn't used to getting hit like that, and it showed.

Bin-fugging-go. The Giants' Dline was simple outstanding in that game,and Brady had no idea where the pressure was going to come from or how to get the time to get the play off, and the Pats' running game was severly limited. Only the short stuff worked for him. While that was nearly enough, it just wasn't.....

I thought the Plan was okay, it just didn't work that day. Sh*t happens.....

Paladin
01-25-2009, 07:41 PM
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I think you have me confused with someone else, or are full of ****

But I dont see how suggesting houses and cars are made out of sod in Kansas accomplishes anything productive if you are in a situation where someone insults you.
I saw you tell that to someone who was from Kansas one time.

Oh and you dont have to reply to an ad hominem with another ad hominem.....

Err..... What's an "ad hominem"? Is that like ad infinitum? That's the same stuff over and over again. Sort of like being married, ya know?.........

Ray Finkle
01-25-2009, 07:43 PM
You must assume this bothers me. Just know that it doesnt. If you know that Im negative, then you should also know by now that there are only a few on here that I truly respect. A lot of the posters are clutter. I do the same thing to a lot of them.




You should. Its your choice but why two years? Why should he even get one? He's come in with big ideas and is replacing a HOF coach. Bowlen went against 76% of the people who funded his new stadium in making this hire. Theres nothing wrong with having expectations in return.



The Falcons had a rookie QB and the Dolphins had a apt but less talented QB and had to completely turn over their defense as well. Plus they played in a division where a team in their division finished 11-5 and didnt make the playoffs. Sorry but 2 years is way too nice. He needs to have his **** together out of the blocks.


Lex, have you ever coached a sport? Not a dig, just a question. It is very difficult to implement the schemes you want to run in just a year. Luckily, keeping Dennison and Turner will aid this. Coaching takes time, if you think bringing in Spags or someone else would change this, your crazy.

Funny, now 76% of the people love Shanahan when a month and a half ago, everyone was squealing for him to be fired.

The Falcons kept the same defense, added a RB and had a great job of coaching up Ryan. That being said, do you see them playing as well next season when the Saints and Bucs raise their game?

Miami had the same exact defense except for bringing Fergeson and move to a 3-4....all the key pieces where there. The Miami defense was good the year before, it was their offense that blew.

Having your **** together and winning games your first season are two totally separate things. Being prepared is one thing, executing is another.

SoCalBronco
01-25-2009, 07:48 PM
I'm not sure why people are criticizing lex for criticizing our new HC. This isn't a groupthink board. If you'd like to swallow McDaniels, feel free to go to Broncomania.

McDaniels holds both alot of promise and also alot of risk. He is replacing a HOF mind. As of this time, he has not proven anything. He has not accomplished anything. He's hired a number of coaches who share his agent, which is troubling. He's also refrained from saying he will impose systems on us which do not fit our personnel, which is helpful. He's also not made any huge ****ups or blown any games that we had no business blowing. Just as it is right for people to hopeful and optimistic, it is also right for people to use some critical thinking.

Tombstone RJ
01-25-2009, 07:48 PM
This thread is craptastic!

Br0nc0Buster
01-25-2009, 07:57 PM
Err..... What's an "ad hominem"? Is that like ad infinitum? That's the same stuff over and over again. Sort of like being married, ya know?.........

Ad hominem is when you attack a person instead of their argument.

lex
01-25-2009, 07:58 PM
I'm not sure why people are criticizing lex for criticizing our new HC. This isn't a groupthink board. If you'd like to swallow McDaniels, feel free to go to Broncomania.

McDaniels holds both alot of promise and also alot of risk. He is replacing a HOF mind. As of this time, he has not proven anything. He has not accomplished anything. He's hired a number of coaches who share his agent, which is troubling. He's also refrained from saying he will impose systems on us which do not fit our personnel, which is helpful. He's also not made any huge ****ups or blown any games that we had no business blowing. Just as it is right for people to hopeful and optimistic, it is also right for people to use some critical thinking.

Zeitgeist has theis place brainwashed with euphoria. A year ago, I was complaining about Bly and that got people all upset. I also threw the idea out there of trading Champ while he still had value...now, a year later, you see that more people have warmed to this...the problem is that its too late. This is no different. People just are blindly optimistic here much of the time.

Ray Finkle
01-25-2009, 07:58 PM
I'm not sure why people are criticizing lex for criticizing our new HC. This isn't a groupthink board. If you'd like to swallow McDaniels, feel free to go to Broncomania.

McDaniels holds both alot of promise and also alot of risk. He is replacing a HOF mind. As of this time, he has not proven anything. He has not accomplished anything. He's hired a number of coaches who share his agent, which is troubling. He's also refrained from saying he will impose systems on us which do not fit our personnel, which is helpful. He's also not made any huge ****ups or blown any games that we had no business blowing. Just as it is right for people to hopeful and optimistic, it is also right for people to use some critical thinking.

Hey Socal, you salty because Sidney didn't play tonight? I think I am the last person to be accused of group think. My problem is not with Lex's thread here but with 90% of Lex's posts that are always negative.

Is there risk in McD and his staff? Damn straight but lets give it some time before we start the "sky is falling crap". I am not happy and dancing in the streets with joy. Spags was my #1 but from what I understand, he did not come across good in any interview which is why he was left with the Rams.

I liked Shanahan and wanted him to stay another year at least but I am willing to give this head coach a shot. Just because your hire coaches that share an agent does not make you a bad coach. It's easier to have lines of communication via the agent.

Tombstone RJ
01-25-2009, 08:00 PM
Ad hominem is when you attack a person instead of their argument.

what about when you attack the thread itself, like I'm doing.













































THIS THREAD NEEDS A QUICK DEATH!

Tombstone RJ
01-25-2009, 08:01 PM
Die! Die Thread Die!

SoCalBronco
01-25-2009, 08:03 PM
. My problem is not with Lex's thread here but with 90% of Lex's posts that are always negative.

.

So?

There's alot of people here who are homer all the time. There are also alot of people who love the flavor of the month. It makes for a good balance. In fact, I often find the negative posts (not just from lex, but in general when they are made) to be more interesting and well thought out than the homer ones. It makes for a great mix...it makes the Mane a great place.

This team has alot of problems and alot of issues. There SHOULD be negativism. It's proper. It's deserved and its healthy.

(BTW I wasn't referring to you when I noted the groupthink syndrome.... you know I respect you, even though you are a Rags fan :) ).

Tombstone RJ
01-25-2009, 08:04 PM
I banish thee for all eternity to the, um, trash! (this is where a mod pulls the proverbial plug).


Do it, do it now!

Tombstone RJ
01-25-2009, 08:07 PM
little help here from a mod would be nice...

SoCalBronco
01-25-2009, 08:08 PM
The point for me is that no one knows how well he will do.
So I think it is kind of silly to be overly negative or overly positive about an unknown.
I get Lex is not a fan, and its not about being critical of him.
I just think it is to the point where he is nitpicking and making mountains of of molehills.
So he voices his opinion, and I voice mine.

Good for both of you...although I suspect you haven't made as much of an objection to those who have been overly positive.

Ray Finkle
01-25-2009, 08:11 PM
So?

There's alot of people here who are homer all the time. There are also alot of people who love the flavor of the month. It makes for a good balance. In fact, I often find the negative posts (not just from lex, but in general when they are made) to be more interesting and well thought out than the homer ones. It makes for a great mix...it makes the Mane a great place.

This team has alot of problems and alot of issues. There SHOULD be negativism. It's proper. It's deserved and its healthy.

(BTW I wasn't referring to you when I noted the groupthink syndrome.... you know I respect you, even though you are a Rags fan :) ).

I know see...you are salty because Geno had to steal from the bag of the Great Marek Malik to score his goal (I do believe in fact that this is the first time the term "great" and Marek Malik have been used as a positive).

I agree that counter views are vital to good discussion, they do not always have to be negative.

SoCalBronco
01-25-2009, 08:14 PM
I know see...you are salty because Geno had to steal from the bag of the Great Marek Malik to score his goal (I do believe in fact that this is the first time the term "great" and Marek Malik have been used as a positive).

I agree that counter views are vital to good discussion, they do not always have to be negative.

You are correct about one thing.

Marek Malk and great go together about as well as strawberry flavored Twizzlers and WD-40 do.

:)

Spider
01-25-2009, 08:14 PM
I'm not sure why people are criticizing lex for criticizing our new HC. This isn't a groupthink board. If you'd like to swallow McDaniels, feel free to go to Broncomania.

McDaniels holds both alot of promise and also alot of risk. He is replacing a HOF mind. As of this time, he has not proven anything. He has not accomplished anything. He's hired a number of coaches who share his agent, which is troubling. He's also refrained from saying he will impose systems on us which do not fit our personnel, which is helpful. He's also not made any huge ****ups or blown any games that we had no business blowing. Just as it is right for people to hopeful and optimistic, it is also right for people to use some critical thinking.
thats just it , no one not even mcD will know how this plays out , but lex has already got this guy sucking balls ...... I think it will take about 3 years to get his system in place with his players .........

Ray Finkle
01-25-2009, 08:17 PM
You are correct about one thing.

Marek Malk and great go together about as well as strawberry flavored Twizzlers and WD-40 do.

:)

yep...typically I called Malik a great waste of space, a great waste of cap space, or even a great waste of roster space.

SoCalBronco
01-25-2009, 08:19 PM
thats just it , no one not even mcD will know how this plays out , but lex has already got this guy sucking balls ...... I think it will take about 3 years to get his system in place with his players .........

That's true Spider...we don't know. Since we allow the homers free reign to drink all the McD kool aid they want to, it seems fair to extend the same courtesy to the doubters.

Br0nc0Buster
01-25-2009, 08:20 PM
Good for both of you...although I suspect you haven't made as much of an objection to those who have been overly positive.

I guess I havent seen that many claim he will be an automatic success

lex
01-25-2009, 08:21 PM
I guess I havent seen that many claim he will be an automatic success

Why are they required to say that to be a homer?

Tombstone RJ
01-25-2009, 08:30 PM
Why are they required to say that to be a homer?

they don't



















why won't this thead die? why oh why did I swallow that fly?

Br0nc0Buster
01-25-2009, 08:35 PM
Why are they required to say that to be a homer?

I am not talking about being a homer.
In contrast to your criticisms, I am not aware of too many people assuming he will be great based off of previous experiences he had
Regardless of your position on McDaniels, I think your assumptions are premature.

If someone was beating to death the concept that he will succeed based on previous outcomes of single games I might express my concern as well.

But I agree with the person who said to let this thread die, it has been derailed.

lex
01-25-2009, 08:43 PM
I am not talking about being a homer.
In contrast to your criticisms, I am not aware of too many people assuming he will be great based off of previous experiences he had
Regardless of your position on McDaniels, I think your assumptions are premature.

If someone was beating to death the concept that he will succeed based on previous outcomes of single games I might express my concern as well.

But I agree with the person who said to let this thread die, it has been derailed.

AYFKM!!!??? The homerism is rampant. Its all over the place. LOL

Like I said previously. 76% of the people wanted Spagnuolo in a poll by the Denver Post. Only 6% wanted McDaniels. Bowlen stuck his neck out on this one. He went against the people who funded his new stadium. I dont know what Bowlen feels McDaniels is entitled to but since he replaced a legend and Bowlen went against the grain to hire him, its not like Bowlen should feel like the fans should be blindly accepting. And regarding McDaniels part in all this. He had to pitch himself to Bowlen. Its not like Bowlen just went and plucked him off the street against his will. McDaniels had to sell Pat Bowlen on why he was the right guy. If it doesnt work and it gets ugly with the fans, thats something McDaniels invited himself. It was only two seasons ago that people left early in the SD game. I hope Bowlen and McDaniels dont think it cant happen to them where fan support is concerned.

McDaniels doesnt have seasons. He has games and maybe not even that.

Spider
01-25-2009, 08:46 PM
That's true Spider...we don't know. Since we allow the homers free reign to drink all the McD kool aid they want to, it seems fair to extend the same courtesy to the doubters.

yeah but there is a line , i consider myself a doubter but hopes like hell he is wrong , i wanted Shanny to stay , but Shanny is gone thats that , all I can do is hope McD succeeds . after all of the Crap I gave Raider , Charger , and Chief fans over coaches , I better hope McD does well ;D

NFLBRONCO
01-25-2009, 09:28 PM
AYFKM!!!??? The homerism is rampant. Its all over the place. LOL

Like I said previously. 76% of the people wanted Spagnuolo in a poll by the Denver Post. Only 6% wanted McDaniels. Bowlen stuck his neck out on this one. He went against the people who funded his new stadium. I dont know what Bowlen feels McDaniels is entitled to but since he replaced a legend and Bowlen went against the grain to hire him, its not like Bowlen should feel like the fans should be blindly accepting. And regarding McDaniels part in all this. He had to pitch himself to Bowlen. Its not like Bowlen just went and plucked him off the street against his will. McDaniels had to sell Pat Bowlen on why he was the right guy. If it doesnt work and it gets ugly with the fans, thats something McDaniels invited himself. It was only two seasons ago that people left early in the SD game. I hope Bowlen and McDaniels dont think it cant happen to them where fan support is concerned.

McDaniels doesnt have seasons. He has games and maybe not even that.

If McDaniels only has a few games or season to prove himself we might as well fire him now. You can hate this move all you want but, if you think Bowlen would make a change that fast wrong. Bowlen himself said, this team has ALOT of work to do. He deserves a few seasons and if it flops we will hire someone else and move on. I think fans are more patient we are in transition.

I could see fans getting upset about not getting instant success with McDaniels if we have been piling up 10 plus win seasons but, 24-24 is hardly lighting it up either.

If your expecting such high standards for McDaniels right away why did you ignore higher standards with Shanny and wanted him to stay? Do you think we will win only 3 games or something in 09?

I wanted Spags when this started but, I'm excited about McDaniels but, I know it will take a few seasons for us to improve.

lex
01-25-2009, 09:45 PM
If McDaniels only has a few games or season to prove himself we might as well fire him now. You can hate this move all you want but, if you think Bowlen would make a change that fast wrong. Bowlen himself said, this team has ALOT of work to do. He deserves a few seasons and if it flops we will hire someone else and move on. I think fans are more patient we are in transition.

He doesnt deserve anything. Once again, he sought to come to Denver. I dont think the fans should be patient at all. When Pat fires Mike, its "his team...he makes the decisions" but when it comes to funding a stadium its "our team". I dont think people have to be pushed that hard to become fed up again, nor should they.

I could see fans getting upset about not getting instant success with McDaniels if we have been piling up 10 plus win seasons but, 24-24 is hardly lighting it up either.

We were coming off a 9-7 season and there was improvement. But one of our problems was an overreliance on Jay. So if this pass happy coach comes in and it doesnt work, a lot of people should rightly be saying, WTF?

If your expecting such high standards for McDaniels right away why did you ignore higher standards with Shanny and wanted him to stay? Do you think we will win only 3 games or something in 09?

I wanted Slowik gone. If it was a scenario of Slowik and Shanahan being a package deal, then I have no problem with firing Shanahan. But that was only phase one. Phase two was finding the replacement and Bowlen got someone who doesnt really add any acumen that Shanahan didnt have. The best thing is the reorganization of the team and not the pass happy head coach per se.

I wanted Spags when this started but, I'm excited about McDaniels but, I know it will take a few seasons for us to improve.

I hope we'll never know if it takes him two seasons. If he doesnt have his **** together this year, I hope he's gone after this year. And I hope the fans make it miserable for him and Pat.

Like I said, McDaniels wanted to go to Denver. You get what you get.

NFLBRONCO
01-25-2009, 10:02 PM
He doesnt deserve anything. Once again, he sought to come to Denver. I dont think the fans should be patient at all. When Pat fires Mike, its "his team...he makes the decisions" but when it comes to funding a stadium its "our team". I dont think people have to be pushed that hard to become fed up again, nor should they.



We were coming off a 9-7 season and there was improvement. But one of our problems was an overreliance on Jay. So if this pass happy coach comes in and it doesnt work, a lot of people should rightly be saying, WTF?



I wanted Slowik gone. If it was a scenario of Slowik and Shanahan being a package deal, then I have no problem with firing Shanahan. But that was only phase one. Phase two was finding the replacement and Bowlen got someone who doesnt really add any acumen that Shanahan didnt have. The best thing is the reorganization of the team and not the pass happy head coach per se.



I hope we'll never know if it takes him two seasons. If he doesnt have his **** together this year, I hope he's gone after this year. And I hope the fans make it miserable for him and Pat.

Like I said, McDaniels wanted to go to Denver. You get what you get.

Well I respect your views on this subject Lex I guess we agree to disagree on this subject. I think one year expectations for any coach is next to impossible. I think Miami and Atlanta turnarounds really made people expect every team to do the same. I would expect more from McDaniels in 09 if our D was decent not awful.

Dr.5280
01-25-2009, 11:38 PM
All you people need to go find a job an quit posting on the internet so much.

24champ
01-26-2009, 12:49 AM
Hey Socal, you salty because Sidney didn't play tonight?

Cindy didn't play? I've always said that Geno is the better hockey player than Cindy.


[/Hockey-jacked thread]

Killericon
01-26-2009, 02:26 AM
All you people need to go find a job an quit posting on the internet so much.

Posting on an internet forum about how people shouldn't post on internet forums so much. Okay then.

Dedhed
01-26-2009, 03:26 AM
"Ability to see the truth"...like some euphemism that makes you feel better.

Sort of like all your whining is a euphemism for having a man crush on Spagnuolo, who according to your assessment style can't really coach because the Eagles were able to score enough points to beat his defense.

Where can we find a coach who's never lost a game?

Dedhed
01-26-2009, 03:33 AM
I'm not sure why people are criticizing lex for criticizing our new HC. This isn't a groupthink board. If you'd like to swallow McDaniels, feel free to go to Broncomania.

McDaniels holds both alot of promise and also alot of risk. He is replacing a HOF mind. As of this time, he has not proven anything. He has not accomplished anything. He's hired a number of coaches who share his agent, which is troubling. He's also refrained from saying he will impose systems on us which do not fit our personnel, which is helpful. He's also not made any huge ****ups or blown any games that we had no business blowing. Just as it is right for people to hopeful and optimistic, it is also right for people to use some critical thinking.
We're criticizing Lex for being a dolt about it. His entire premise is that McDaniels can't coach because he lost a Super Bowl. No one is asking anybody to swallow other than lex himself, who wants us all to believe that the McDaniels hire is the worst possible move the Broncos could have made. Meanwhile he espouses a candidate who has had less success than McDaniels and also has no experience as a head coach.

None of us know how McDaniels will work out, but there isn't much doubt that he has earned the opportunity and possesses a talent for coaching.

lex
01-26-2009, 05:39 AM
Sort of like all your whining is a euphemism for having a man crush on Spagnuolo, who according to your assessment style can't really coach because the Eagles were able to score enough points to beat his defense.

Where can we find a coach who's never lost a game?
Huh?

Actually, nevermind. LOL

lex
01-26-2009, 05:40 AM
We're criticizing Lex for being a dolt about it. His entire premise is that McDaniels can't coach because he lost a Super Bowl. No one is asking anybody to swallow other than lex himself, who wants us all to believe that the McDaniels hire is the worst possible move the Broncos could have made. Meanwhile he espouses a candidate who has had less success than McDaniels and also has no experience as a head coach.

None of us know how McDaniels will work out, but there isn't much doubt that he has earned the opportunity and possesses a talent for coaching.

Back up the truck there, nitwit. Who said anything about what I want any of you to think. Im just pointing this stuff out. You can think what you want. I dont want to do your thinking for you. Besides that, what makes you so sure that its still about Spags and not about what to expect from McDaniels? You dont. Your reading comprehension is gawd awful.

Hercules Rockefeller
01-26-2009, 05:43 AM
Cindy didn't play? I've always said that Geno is the better hockey player than Cindy.


[/Hockey-jacked thread]

Sandy vag, he's day-to-day.

Who cares which one is better? Neither is the best player in the world.

Bronx33
01-26-2009, 12:25 PM
This thread is craptastic!


The big words sold me.

Bronx33
01-26-2009, 12:31 PM
If McDaniels only has a few games or season to prove himself we might as well fire him now. You can hate this move all you want but, if you think Bowlen would make a change that fast wrong. Bowlen himself said, this team has ALOT of work to do. He deserves a few seasons and if it flops we will hire someone else and move on. I think fans are more patient we are in transition.

I could see fans getting upset about not getting instant success with McDaniels if we have been piling up 10 plus win seasons but, 24-24 is hardly lighting it up either.

If your expecting such high standards for McDaniels right away why did you ignore higher standards with Shanny and wanted him to stay? Do you think we will win only 3 games or something in 09?

I wanted Spags when this started but, I'm excited about McDaniels but, I know it will take a few seasons for us to improve.


good post but some folks like to say the ship won't sail it's bound to sink! ect ect basically some folks have zero patience and like to put all their eggs in one basket and get called out when things go good. ( that will be fun huh) ROFL!

NFLBRONCO
01-27-2009, 10:32 AM
I'm not sure why people are criticizing lex for criticizing our new HC. This isn't a groupthink board. If you'd like to swallow McDaniels, feel free to go to Broncomania.

McDaniels holds both alot of promise and also alot of risk. He is replacing a HOF mind. As of this time, he has not proven anything. He has not accomplished anything. He's hired a number of coaches who share his agent, which is troubling. He's also refrained from saying he will impose systems on us which do not fit our personnel, which is helpful. He's also not made any huge ****ups or blown any games that we had no business blowing. Just as it is right for people to hopeful and optimistic, it is also right for people to use some critical thinking.

I respect Lex's view on the new coach. My main issue with his view is expecting in one year to have major results is unrealistic. I myself have no idea how Josh will do here if he bombs we try someone new whenever Bowlen feels another change is needed.

lex
01-27-2009, 02:44 PM
good post but some folks like to say the ship won't sail it's bound to sink! ect ect basically some folks have zero patience and like to put all their eggs in one basket and get called out when things go good. ( that will be fun huh) ROFL!

No. You act like I want the team to fail. I dont. Anyone here remember how I hated the Torain pick? Did I jump up and down and rub it in because I was right? No. I didnt. Its not like I was hoping the guy would get injured. Some of you dont even know what youre saying.

Bronx33
01-27-2009, 02:48 PM
ooooooook lex i guess you explained your 24/7 negativity.