PDA

View Full Version : Is this the most exciting time in Broncos history since Super Bowl 33?


montrose
02-23-2009, 10:49 AM
The boards are going crazy!

Hotrod
02-23-2009, 10:53 AM
I'm still not sure it was the right move but there is no doubt it is exciting.

Meck77
02-23-2009, 11:00 AM
No...2005 was a one big ass party all season long both home and away!

Even the Plummer haters were coming to town back then joining the bandwagon! Now they sit around and bitch about how we almost won a superbowl. Imagine that. Ha!

Kaylore
02-23-2009, 11:03 AM
Exciting means winning. The '05 run was the last time we did that really consistently.

There's a lot of uncertainty in the recent offseason moves and certainly very mixed expectations. I would say it is the most interesting offseason Denver has seen since Shanahan came into town, but it's not the most exciting.

Tombstone RJ
02-23-2009, 11:05 AM
Yep, it's exciting as all get-out! In the 05 season, it was exciting too, but the offense was way too inconsistent to really believe (at least for me) that the team could WIN a SB. Also, the defense was alot better than the 2008 defense, but it was still pretty inconsistent too, if I recall correctly.

Was the 2005 team fun to watch, sure, if you weren't scared Plummer would throw a pick at the exact wrong time.

With Cutler behind center, you have the cornerstone of the offense for a long time. This team has a great, trememdous offensive line to protect Cutler and open holes. All this team needs is a consistent running game and if Hillis is that guy, great, I really don't care who it is, I just want a go-to RB.

What concerns everyone here is the defense. But, as demonstrated by last season's Phins team, a defense can be good, even if it's much different than it was the year before.

If the Broncos can field a top 5 scoring offense, with a top 15 defense, I see great improvement.

USMCBladerunner
02-23-2009, 11:06 AM
like Kaylore said...this is interesting, but I haven't been excited since 2005. When Pitt knocked off Indy, I was having visions of sugar plums.

ludo21
02-23-2009, 11:08 AM
05 was way better.

Id be more exited about this season if shanny were coach

Meck77
02-23-2009, 11:11 AM
Yep, it's exciting as all get-out! In the 05 season, it was exciting too, but the offense was way too inconsistent to really believe (at least for me) that the team could WIN a SB. Also, the defense was alot better than the 2008 defense, but it was still pretty inconsistent too, if I recall correctly.

Was the 2005 team fun to watch, sure, if you weren't scared Plummer would throw a pick at the exact wrong time.

With Cutler behind center, you have the cornerstone of the offense for a long time. This team has a great, trememdous offensive line to protect Cutler and open holes. All this team needs is a consistent running game and if Hillis is that guy, great, I really don't care who it is, I just want a go-to RB.

What concerns everyone here is the defense. But, as demonstrated by last season's Phins team, a defense can be good, even if it's much different than it was the year before.

If the Broncos can field a top 5 scoring offense, with a top 15 defense, I see great improvement.

Yeah it really sucked going to home games, pulling out wins, and seeing hundreds of Broncos fans tailgating in the parking lots throwing down high fives long after the game was over.

It's been much more fun watching out team get FLAT OUT BEAT DOWN and embarrassed by big double digit losses since then.

Los Broncos
02-23-2009, 11:17 AM
I am looking forward the upcoming season with the changes and all.

But 2005 takes it, that was a special season.

dbfan21
02-23-2009, 11:22 AM
2005 rocked. :strong: I saw two games that season (I live in FL) - the Jax game and the playoff game vs. the Pats. 13-3, dreams of another Super Bowl...ugh...those frickin Steelers!!

Tombstone RJ
02-23-2009, 11:33 AM
Yeah it really sucked going to home games, pulling out wins, and seeing hundreds of Broncos fans tailgating in the parking lots throwing down high fives long after the game was over.

It's been much more fun watching out team get FLAT OUT BEAT DOWN and embarrassed by big double digit losses since then.

Touche. I wasn't in Denver then so I can't speak for the atmosphere. I bet it was cool has hell. My bad.

broncosteven
02-23-2009, 11:38 AM
Touche. I wasn't in Denver then so I can't speak for the atmosphere. I bet it was cool has hell. My bad.

I was in Denver for one game in 2005, and met Meck at the SD game.

I remember the croud booing the Broncos at the Half.

I remember Champ saving the season with his Pick6 to start the 2nd half.

The rest of the year was better but I wasn't in town either.

Funny what different people remember about that year. That is what makes us humans fun. It would suck if everyone thought the same way.

montrose
02-23-2009, 11:46 AM
2005 is the year I point to as a direct culture-change for the Broncos in this town. Many point to the lack of winning having a direct effect on diminishing passion for the Broncos. However, that year we were hosting the AFC Title Game and the Steelers fans absolutely took over that stadium. From my understanding in talking with other season ticket holders, there were significant fan bases from New England, Philadelphia, Washington and Oakland during that season of winning. It appeared from TV that carried over to the next season and I can vouch for being surrounded by fans of Seattle Freakin' Seahawks during Cutler's 1st start.

Meanwhile Pittsburgh, a smaller market and city of less affluence than Denver with tickets that (of my understanding) are more expensive than Denver hosts the AFC Title Game and I couldn't catch more than two Ravens fans in the entire crowd. It's easy to blame losing, but something (I can't put my finger on it) has changed the football culture in Denver. People still care about the Broncos, but I do not consider Broncos fans to be anywhere near as passionate as some of the other fan bases. And 2005 is an example that it's not exclusively related to winning. And on a side note, if it were - I'd be even more disgusted as I loathe those who are "passionate" about their teams because they're winning. If you care about your team you should show it all times, not just bandwagon hopping time. Obviously this does not speak to those on this forum, as members of an internet message board like this are obviously passionate fans who care about their team, just wanted to point that out.

Spider
02-23-2009, 11:48 AM
most exciting time ? no , but one of the most uncertain times thats for sure

Natedog24
02-23-2009, 11:49 AM
05 more exciting by a ton...

Nothing is more exciting then winning football games.

Meck77
02-23-2009, 11:49 AM
Funny what different people remember about that year. That is what makes us humans fun. It would suck if everyone thought the same way.

And we won! And Broncos fans partied in the streets after the game! Too bad you didn't make more games that season.

Hopefully we can all get together once again next season and celebrate a victory. :thumbs:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/den/2005.htm

broncosteven
02-23-2009, 11:57 AM
And we won! And Broncos fans partied in the streets after the game! Too bad you didn't make more games that season.

Hopefully we can all get together once again next season and celebrate a victory. :thumbs:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/den/2005.htm

I hope to be able to make it out to Denver to one game this year. I have to start saving now!

Had fun last year at the NO game. Great weekend.

Tombstone RJ
02-23-2009, 11:57 AM
2005 is the year I point to as a direct culture-change for the Broncos in this town. Many point to the lack of winning having a direct effect on diminishing passion for the Broncos. However, that year we were hosting the AFC Title Game and the Steelers fans absolutely took over that stadium. From my understanding in talking with other season ticket holders, there were significant fan bases from New England, Philadelphia, Washington and Oakland during that season of winning. It appeared from TV that carried over to the next season and I can vouch for being surrounded by fans of Seattle Freakin' Seahawks during Cutler's 1st start.

Meanwhile Pittsburgh, a smaller market and city of less affluence than Denver with tickets that (of my understanding) are more expensive than Denver hosts the AFC Title Game and I couldn't catch more than two Ravens fans in the entire crowd. It's easy to blame losing, but something (I can't put my finger on it) has changed the football culture in Denver. People still care about the Broncos, but I do not consider Broncos fans to be anywhere near as passionate as some of the other fan bases. And 2005 is an example that it's not exclusively related to winning (and on a side note, if it were - I'd be even more disgusted as I loathe those who are "passionate" about their teams because they're winning. If you care about your team you should show it all times, not just bandwagon hopping time).

It's called apathy, and that is the main reason Shanny had to go. When the fans stop caring, then you've got a real problem as an owner.

Mile High Stadium is history. It's gone. When Bowlen demolished Mile High Stadium, he demolished the Broncos link with the blue-collar fan that supported the team through thick and thin.

Does Invesco still sell out? Sure, I guess. But is it full of fanatical Broncos fans from top to bottom, no. It's filled with alot of transplants and corporate morons who just want to see a game. It's a wine and cheese crowd, if you please.

Hey, there's alot of money in the greater Denver metro area. Lots of peeps with lots of cash and they can afford to sit on the 50 yard line and "watch" the game. If they are season ticket holders, but they grew up in San Francisco or Washington or Pittsburgh then they probably root against the Broncos when thier home team comes to town. Or, they sell their seats to a third party who is there to root for the other team. PA-THET-ICK!

But, Bowlen got his new digs, the cash flow is much better, and Bowlen spends his money on the team.

Eh, I don't live in Denver anymore so I really can't say I care. Denver is a town full of transients who only root for the local teams as a second option AND I FUGGEN HATE IT!!!

I got alot of angst against the idiots who moved to Denver in the last 20 years.

montrose
02-23-2009, 12:00 PM
It's called apathy, and that is the main reason Shanny had to go. When the fans stop caring, then you've got a real problem as an owner.

Mile High Stadium is history. It's gone. When Bowlen demolished Mile High Stadium, he demolished the Broncos link with the blue-collar fan that supported the team through thick and thin.

Does Invesco still sell out? Sure, I guess. But is it full of fanatical Broncos fans from top to bottom, no. It's filled with alot of transplants and corporate morons who just want to see a game. It's a wine and cheese crowd, if you please.

Hey, there's alot of money in the greater Denver metro area. Lots of peeps with lots of cash and they can afford to sit on the 50 yard line and "watch" the game. If they are season ticket holders, but they grew up in San Francisco or Washington or Pittsburgh then they probably root against the Broncos when thier home team comes to town. Or, they sell their seats to a third party who is there to root for the other team. PA-THET-ICK!

But, Bowlen got his new digs, the cash flow is much better, and Bowlen spends his money on the team.

I've thought that as well, but Pittsburgh, Washington, Philadelphia, New England and Cleveland are examples of teams that tore down their old stadiums and aren't having these issues to my knowledge.

Spider
02-23-2009, 12:14 PM
I've thought that as well, but Pittsburgh, Washington, Philadelphia, New England and Cleveland are examples of teams that tore down their old stadiums and aren't having these issues to my knowledge.

Yeah , but they didnt have the history Mile High did , and what I mean by that is ......back in the 60's Atlanta made a bid for the Denver Broncos , Bears stadium back then was to small , the owner( Bob Howsam) then decided to go ahead and sell the Broncos to the highest Bidder , The Phipps bros bought em and built on to Mile High (back then Bears Stadium) , for the Longest time The Broncos were the only game in town , they got all the media attention .......

Popps
02-23-2009, 12:14 PM
I think it's definitely the most exciting time.

I think the dawn of the Griese and Plummer eras were both big, for different reasons. Bringing in Cutler was exciting.

But, this is wholesale change after a decade of mostly mediocrity. (Yes, we did some good things in that decade.)

I don't see how you can't be excited right now. Great offense in place, a coveted coaching prospect, a high draft pick, cap room and a defense that pretty much can't go anywhere but up.

What's not to like!?

Tombstone RJ
02-23-2009, 12:15 PM
I've thought that as well, but Pittsburgh, Washington, Philadelphia, New England and Cleveland are examples of teams that tore down their old stadiums and aren't having these issues to my knowledge.

Yep, and you want to know why montrose? It's very simple: People from all over the country WANT TO LIVE IN DENVER.

It's at the top of everyone's list.

That's the difference my friend.

No one wants to pick up and move to Pittsburgh!

No one wants to pick up and move to Foxborough (Boston, maybe, if you can afford it).

No one wants to pick up and move to Cleveland!

Do you see my point? DENVER is full of people who grew up somewhere else. Now they make Denver their home, and they bring their home town teams with them.

It sucks for real natives such as myself to be surrounded by people from Northern California (yuk) or the beltway (Washington or Baltimore fans) or the Midwest (Packer fans, for example).

So, when you go to Invesco and sit down next to some azzzz-clown who really doesn't give a crap about the game, and this azzz-clown asks you to sit down because he/she can't see the field, ask this azzzzzzzz-clown a questions: "HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN DENVER AND WHERE ARE YOU FROM?"

9 times out of 10 I bet they say, "We moved here in 1996 from Long Beach, CA (or some other place, doesn't really matter) and I grew up loving the 49ers (or some other team doesn't really matter)."

The true Broncos fan is the guy with the beer standing next to you yelling his butt off trying to get the team to play better. But, in many ways, he's dissappearing.

montrose
02-23-2009, 12:19 PM
Yep, and you want to know why montrose? It's very simple: People from all over the country WANT TO LIVE IN DENVER.

It's at the top of everyone's list.

That's the difference my friend.

No one wants to pick up and move to Pittsburgh!

No one wants to pick up and move to Foxborough (Boston, maybe, if you can afford it).

No one wants to pick up and move to Cleveland!

Do you see my point? DENVER is full of people who grew up somewhere else. Now they make Denver their home, and they bring their home town teams with them.

It sucks for real natives such as myself to be surrounded by people from Northern California (yuk) or the beltway (Washington or Baltimore fans) or the Midwest (Packer fans, for example).

So, when you go to Invesco and sit down next to some azzzz-clown who really doesn't give a crap about the game, and this azzz-clown asks you to sit down because he/she can't see the field, ask this azzzzzzzz-clown a questions: "HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN DENVER AND WHERE ARE YOU FROM?"

9 times out of 10 I bet they say, "We moved here in 1996 from Long Beach, CA (or some other place, doesn't really matter) and I grew up loving the 49ers (or some other team doesn't really matter)."

The true Broncos fan is the guy with the beer standing next to you yelling his butt off trying to get the team to play better. But, in many ways, he's dissappearing.

Then it's solved. It now becomes my personal mission to make Denver the shi**iest place in the country to live so we can have a passionate fan base again.

Spider
02-23-2009, 12:23 PM
Then it's solved. It now becomes my personal mission to make Denver the shi**iest place in the country to live so we can have a passionate fan base again.

I could Always move back :wiggle:

Kaylore
02-23-2009, 12:28 PM
What's not to like!?

Besides a bunch of guys with no experience as pro-executives in our front office? Nothing at all!

HEAV
02-23-2009, 12:35 PM
In 05 I really felt that this team was on track to steal a SuperBowl. But Shanny ego and gameplan blew it. 05 run was great and to me the most exciting time in Broncos history since last Super Bowl.

This coming era of BRONCOS football is a different type of excitment. It's more hopefull than it is exciting. It's about seeing how Josh,Nolan and X-man turn this thing around.

Popps
02-23-2009, 12:40 PM
Besides a bunch of guys with no experience as pro-executives in our front office? Nothing at all!

How much experience as a GM did Mike Shanahan have when he took over?

Beyond that, your statement just isn't truthful. These guys have experience.

montrose
02-23-2009, 12:50 PM
How much experience as a GM did Mike Shanahan have when he took over?

Beyond that, your statement just isn't truthful. These guys have experience.

Question here Popps from a fellow fan excited about the new regime. Are you really excited about the guys coming in or are you just so thrilled Shanahan and company are gone you would've been happy with any of the alternatives from both a coaching and front office standpoint?

Kaylore
02-23-2009, 01:06 PM
How much experience as a GM did Mike Shanahan have when he took over?
Are you making my points for me now or are you saying you don't mind mediocre team building because you're used to it?

Beyond that, your statement just isn't truthful. These guys have experience.

No they don't. Xanders worked on contract language and cap management. While very important, that doesn't teach you the kind of players you need to build a team. Kidd is the most qualified where he worked for pro-scouting for the Patriots, Browns and Cardinals: all teams that suck except the patriots. The Patriots never brought in a single free agent worth crap outside of Keith Traylor for a rental during Kidd's time on Pro-scouting.

None of the people leading our front office have ever run a draft, managed a college scouting department or called the shots on the assembly of a football team. That's a fact.

broncosteven
02-23-2009, 01:48 PM
How much experience as a GM did Mike Shanahan have when he took over?

Beyond that, your statement just isn't truthful. These guys have experience.

I would feel better about the changes if this was not MickyD's 1st HC gig.

At least SHanny spent 2 seasons preparing a team and was able to find out on Al's dime what kind of system he wanted to run and what kind of players he needed.

McKidd is learning on our dime and Xanders built some terrible Falcon teams.

Rock Chalk
02-23-2009, 01:51 PM
Exciting means winning. The '05 run was the last time we did that really consistently.

There's a lot of uncertainty in the recent offseason moves and certainly very mixed expectations. I would say it is the most interesting offseason Denver has seen since Shanahan came into town, but it's not the most exciting.

+1

Archer81
02-23-2009, 01:53 PM
I would feel better about the changes if this was not MickyD's 1st HC gig.

At least SHanny spent 2 seasons preparing a team and was able to find out on Al's dime what kind of system he wanted to run and what kind of players he needed.

McKidd is learning on our dime and Xanders built some terrible Falcon teams.


Vick sank Atlanta 2 seasons ago, virtually buried them. Otherwise Xanders has helped shape a decent Falcon roster. Could be worse, we could have Tom Cable as HC...


:Broncos:

montrose
02-23-2009, 01:57 PM
Could be worse, we could have Tom Cable as HC...

The Cable Guy kicked our @$$ in our own house with Hillis on the field in a game when our Shanny-powered offense only mustered 10 points and a few turnovers along the way.

NFLBRONCO
02-23-2009, 01:58 PM
I think its exciting in the following ways

new ideas
a plan they will stick to
Actually overhaul a D not bandaid fix it
Coach does not say we are only two players away from SB when we aren't

Archer81
02-23-2009, 02:05 PM
The Cable Guy kicked our @$$ in our own house with Hillis on the field in a game when our Shanny-powered offense only mustered 10 points and a few turnovers along the way.


Game was competitive into the third, we stopped running the ball and started turning the football over. Dont be negative.


:Broncos:

montrose
02-23-2009, 02:12 PM
Game was competitive into the third, we stopped running the ball and started turning the football over. Dont be negative.

Wasn't trying to be too negative. I just hate it when people on the boards here clown Oakland and KC to no end because it makes it that much worse when we have the inevitable series split with them each year.

I feel like it makes us out to be a joke. We make fun of KC and Oakland as these terrible franchises, yet we lose to them. KC won two freaking games last year and one of those was a through @$$ kicking and the game we won was a comeback win that held up with a 4th down stop at the 1 yard line. Oakland's soundly kicked our @$$ twice in our last four matchups and if not for the Shanny OT-time out, they'd be 3-1 against us. Until we start handling these teams annually, I'd prefer if we held back on the jokes.

ol number 7
02-23-2009, 02:27 PM
Game was competitive into the third, we stopped running the ball and started turning the football over. Dont be negative.


:Broncos:


Right now is like having a new girlfriend and waiting for the first time she slips her shirt off. The anticipation as to what's going to happen next just kills you. I think I'll be feeling this way til after the first game. It was tough last year to get excited with our defense and the fact we didn't blow anyone up cept for maybe game one. Every CLOSE game was a white knuckle ride.

baja
02-23-2009, 02:40 PM
Why doesn't Pat Bowlen post here any more?

Popps
02-23-2009, 02:42 PM
Question here Popps from a fellow fan excited about the new regime. Are you really excited about the guys coming in or are you just so thrilled Shanahan and company are gone you would've been happy with any of the alternatives from both a coaching and front office standpoint?

Here's the thing about all of the front office talk we're hearing around this message board right now... people don't really know.

These same people telling you that our new front office isn't qualified are a lot of the same people that defended some of of the worst drafting and free agency in the league over the past decade. It's only recently that we've had a good draft, and our FA record has been abysmal.

So, consider the sources around here when these message board experts claim to know how qualified front office personnel really is.

As for the staff, I'm extremely excited about McD. It feels a lot like it did when we brought Shanahan in. He's been groomed in a winning organization and Shanahan himself said that it wasn't until he went to the 49ers that he "learned how to win."

As for Xanders, I think we've had designs on him since we brought him in last year. I don't think any of what's happening is by accident, but that's just my opinion.

I love what Nolan brings as far as having coached a pro team. I think he'll be a big resource for McD.

It's truly an exciting time when you factor everything in. If people want to take the sour grapes roll like they did when Griese was run out of town, just let them. Personally, I'm as excited as I have been in a very long time.

Crushaholic
02-23-2009, 02:43 PM
Why doesn't Pat Bowlen post here any more?

TJ insulted his drinking habits...:P

Tombstone RJ
02-23-2009, 02:44 PM
Are you making my points for me now or are you saying you don't mind mediocre team building because you're used to it?



No they don't. Xanders worked on contract language and cap management. While very important, that doesn't teach you the kind of players you need to build a team. Kidd is the most qualified where he worked for pro-scouting for the Patriots, Browns and Cardinals: all teams that suck except the patriots. The Patriots never brought in a single free agent worth crap outside of Keith Traylor for a rental during Kidd's time on Pro-scouting.

None of the people leading our front office have ever run a draft, managed a college scouting department or called the shots on the assembly of a football team. That's a fact.

I can't remember the years Kidd worked for the Pats but the Pats did pretty well in FA, if I remember correctly. Corey Dillon, Randy Moss, Terrell Suggs (I think that's his name, a linebacker I believe).

I think FA is where Belichick makes his mark, not so much drafting...

Popps
02-23-2009, 02:58 PM
Are you making my points for me now or are you saying you don't mind mediocre team building because you're used to it?
.

Really? Mediocre?

I thought Shanahan did a reasonably good job when he was brought in as head coach. Maybe I'm remembering those two SBs wrong.

TDmvp
02-23-2009, 02:59 PM
where is the hell no this sucks option ...

Popps
02-23-2009, 03:01 PM
McKidd is learning on our dime and Xanders built some terrible Falcon teams.

He's not learning any more than Shanahan was learning on our dime. You can't possibly count the debacle in Oakland as a head coaching gig. Honestly, people don't coach in Oakland... they say "yes sir/no sir" to an old bag of wind.

Shanahan came in with ZERO GM experience and assembled a staff and won two SBs.

Basically, most of the things people are criticizing McDaniel's and Co. about are the very things Shanahan did successfully.

broncolife
02-23-2009, 03:07 PM
This is probably the most excited I have been for FA. I feel like a kid before Christmas. I usually only feel that way before the draft.

Popps
02-23-2009, 03:19 PM
This is probably the most excited I have been for FA. I feel like a kid before Christmas. I usually only feel that way before the draft.

The only downside of this FA period is that it's really thin on DL talent. Scary-thin, and it looked to be pretty good going into the off-season.

So, we'll see. I'm excited to replace the bums we had out there. I just wish there were a couple of impact players still left out there, and there just aren't many.

Bronco Yoda
02-23-2009, 03:21 PM
Are we going to stick with our kicking game?

Tombstone RJ
02-23-2009, 03:27 PM
He's not learning any more than Shanahan was learning on our dime. You can't possibly count the debacle in Oakland as a head coaching gig. Honestly, people don't coach in Oakland... they say "yes sir/no sir" to an old bag of wind.

Shanahan came in with ZERO GM experience and assembled a staff and won two SBs.

Basically, most of the things people are criticizing McDaniel's and Co. about are the very things Shanahan did successfully.

Pretty much, yep.

Alot of posters are just scared, and that is understandable. Hell, its a whole new game in Denver and it's got alot of peeps scared.

Some posters just need to understand that Bowlen (and rightly so) felt the time had come to say goodbye to Shanahan. I agree with Bowlen. He's hired a young guy who is unproven as a HC, and he's hired a young guy who is unproven as a GM. Theres a new front office to go with a new coaching staff and a new defense.

Lot's of changes.

But, believe it or not, Mike Shanahan did not invent football. He helped the Broncos win their first SB with Elway, and he is IMHO, the best Broncos HC to ever wear the orange and blue. But, he is replacable.

It's gonna be fine. In fact, I think the team will go 11-5.

There, I said it.

baja
02-23-2009, 03:41 PM
He's not learning any more than Shanahan was learning on our dime. You can't possibly count the debacle in Oakland as a head coaching gig. Honestly, people don't coach in Oakland... they say "yes sir/no sir" to an old bag of wind.

<b>Shanahan came in with ZERO GM experience and assembled a staff and won two SBs.

Basically, most of the things people are criticizing McDaniel's and Co. about are the very things Shanahan did successfully.

You really have a unique way of viewing situations and because of it make some very interesting points, this bolded one is a particularly good one.

Kaylore
02-23-2009, 03:44 PM
Really? Mediocre?

I thought Shanahan did a reasonably good job when he was brought in as head coach. Maybe I'm remembering those two SBs wrong.

Now you're changing the conversation. We're talking about GM abilities. Try and keep up.

Kaylore
02-23-2009, 03:46 PM
You really have a unique way of viewing situations and because of it make some very interesting points, this bolded one is a particularly good one.

What's funny is how quickly Popps will abandon his tried and true foil in an argument to suit his purposes.

Popps would argue ad nauseum that Shanahan was done and didn't know how to build a defense. He was clapping his hands with joy over him getting fired. Now he's using him as an example of why this new experiment will work. ::) Nevermind we had the worst defense in the league.

baja
02-23-2009, 04:00 PM
What's funny is how quickly Popps will abandon his tried and true foil in an argument to suit his purposes.

Popps would argue ad nauseum that Shanahan was done and didn't know how to build a defense. He was clapping his hands with joy over him getting fired. Now he's using him as an example of why this new experiment will work. ::) Nevermind we had the worst defense in the league.

Popps does take BB license I will will not try and argue that. ;D

But he does come up with some interesting points to make his case and the unproven Shanny winning us two SBs is very soothing when we look ahead to the inaugural season of the McDaniels regime.

broncosteven
02-23-2009, 04:15 PM
He's not learning any more than Shanahan was learning on our dime. You can't possibly count the debacle in Oakland as a head coaching gig. Honestly, people don't coach in Oakland... they say "yes sir/no sir" to an old bag of wind.

Shanahan came in with ZERO GM experience and assembled a staff and won two SBs.

Basically, most of the things people are criticizing McDaniel's and Co. about are the very things Shanahan did successfully.

Shanny left Oakland with a .500 mark. Bronco fans think .500 = bad, 2-14 seasons = BAD. He did that with a really bad QB and like you pointed out, Al Davis looking over his shoulder.

I think you miss my point. Shanny was able to gain HC experience, for 2 offseasons with a bad team, and beat us. Then he did the smart thing and jumped to what at the time was a 1st class operation as OC for another 2 years and crystalize his philosphy before being signed by Bowlen.

MickyD is not being asked to be a GM so he will have less on his plate than Shanny did coming in.

MickyD has gained experience with one of the best franchises in the league right now but he has only been allowed input on an O, he has run others systems not fully his own.

What is MickyD's record as a HC?

I would feel better about all the moves if MickyD has had HC experience. Right now his record is .500 0-0.

Popps
02-23-2009, 04:15 PM
What's funny is how quickly Popps will abandon his tried and true foil in an argument to suit his purposes.

Really?

I think even funnier is your inability to follow the conversation.

Are we talking about Shanahan joining the Broncos without experience as a GM or are we talking about Shanahan, 15 years into his career, clearly struggling?

See, I think you know that the simple analogy I used was McDaniels to Shanahan... both similar in experience. Shanahan came in town and did a great job, yet... you assume McDaniels cannot under the same exact circumstances.

I think you need to make up your mind.


Popps would argue ad nauseum that Shanahan was done and didn't know how to build a defense. .

See, you're incorrect again. I'm fairly sure you know that. You're not a dumb guy. You can read, and you know that I've praised Shanahan's early efforts in Denver "ad nauseum."

However, while supportive of his early moves and results, I have pointed out A CLEAR AND VERY DISTINCT CHANGE OF PHILOSOPHY between Mike Shanahan of the mid 90s and Mike Shanahan of today.

I've probably commented on that change in philosophy 300 times on this board, without any exaggeration.

Mike Shanahan ran a very different organization in 08 than he did in 95/96.

If Mike Shanahan was still prioritizing defense the way he did when he came in, you wouldn't have heard me agreeing with the decision to look in another direction.

So, I think you get it. There were two different versions of Shanahan, Kaylore. I'm not going to lay the facts out because again, you're not a dummy. Save the pretending not to understand act for people like Blueflame.

Disagree? Great. But, let's not pretend we're arguing something we're not.

Popps
02-23-2009, 04:18 PM
Popps does take BB license I will will not try and argue that. ;D

But he does come up with some interesting points to make his case and the unproven Shanny winning us two SBs is very soothing when we look ahead to the inaugural season of the McDaniels regime.


As I just told Kaylore (which he already knew, of course ) ... it's not just that Shanahan was young, it's the way in which he conducted his business. It was vastly different than the stubborn, bizarre FA-signing, defensive bottom-picking Shanahan we saw poo-poo'ing things around here the last few years.

Taco John
02-23-2009, 04:36 PM
The 2005 playoff run was exciting, especially considering that we rolled in with four December wins, and it could have been 8 straight wins if it weren't for us being jobbed in KC. But I'll admit I still felt dread over how Plummer would handle the post season. I'm sure I'll be criticized for it, but that's just the way I felt - I was expecting him to make mistakes, and just hoped the team could rally enough to overcome them. That feeling tampered my excitement a bit.

It's because of how 2005 ended that I voted for the beginning of the Cutler era.

Taco John
02-23-2009, 04:38 PM
However, while supportive of his early moves and results, I have pointed out A CLEAR AND VERY DISTINCT CHANGE OF PHILOSOPHY between Mike Shanahan of the mid 90s and Mike Shanahan of today.



I think you exaggerate and ignore certain realities when you try to make this case.

Popps
02-23-2009, 04:49 PM
I think you exaggerate and ignore certain realities when you try to make this case.

Well, you're welcome to that opinion... but I've MADE the case countless times around here.

Shanahan was laser-locked on building a defense when he got to Denver. Almost all of his marquee moves were on D, including some brilliant bargain signings, blue-collar guys and top-flight free agents. (And two #1 draft picks.)

That's in stark contrast with latter-day Shanahan, swinging and missing in free agency and largely ignoring the defense in the draft outside of a long string of cornerback failures.

So, you've got one Shanahan that was able to identify and lure in great players like Romanowski and Traylor, and you've got another Shanahan who signs Boss Bailey and Niko Whatthe****us.

The thing about time is that when enough of it passes... excuses stop working. Shanahan had plenty of time and after his initial run, was never able to field a top flight defense again, and I'm not talking statistically. I'm talking about a shut-down D.

Gcver2ver3
02-23-2009, 04:56 PM
this is the most exciting offseason for me in a long time...

i was excited about when we acquired Anthony Miller and Mike Pritchard...

i was excited about getting getting Jake Plummer...

i was excited about getting Champ Bailey...

but this offseason is really enjoyable...new coach, new FO, the getting rid of all the dead weight and converting to a brand new defensive system, plus having cap room and a good draft position, this is exciting...

the only offseason that rivals this is when we hired mike shanahan...

go figure...

ZONA
02-23-2009, 05:04 PM
**** that, I'm excited. I'm excited that we won't have a **** Dcoord next year. I'm excited that we are finally moving to a 3-4, which I have been pleading for us to do for a long long time. I'm excited that Bowlen is no longer standing around waiting for good things to happen. With the decline of this team in Shanny's last few years, I'm excited that Bowlen had some nuts to try something different. I'm excited that even though this teams needs much improvement, everybody else in the AFC West sucks too so it's possible, even with a tough schedule, that we could make the playoffs.

Hell yeah I'm excited. It's not just interesting, it's exciting.

Atlas
02-23-2009, 05:05 PM
The boards are going crazy!

YAWN

DHallblows
02-23-2009, 10:01 PM
this is the most exciting offseason for me in a long time...

i was excited about when we acquired Anthony Miller and Mike Pritchard...

i was excited about getting getting Jake Plummer...

i was excited about getting Champ Bailey...

but this offseason is really enjoyable...new coach, new FO, the getting rid of all the dead weight and converting to a brand new defensive system, plus having cap room and a good draft position, this is exciting...

the only offseason that rivals this is when we hired mike shanahan...

go figure...

I'll say it's the most exciting AFTER we sign some good players. All your former exciting offseasons involved signing people, so I think we need some actual big signings before I'm jumping around. But everything you mentioned is setting it up to be exciting!!!

BroncoMan4ever
02-23-2009, 10:11 PM
i won't say exciting, i think most interesting, and unsettled time since SB33.

Taco John
02-23-2009, 11:03 PM
Well, you're welcome to that opinion... but I've MADE the case countless times around here.

I think you put too much stock in the idea that you've "MADE" such a case, considering the facts don't support such a case.

I definitely agree that the latter day Shanahan had more misses on defense than he had hits. I just don't think that there's much of a case to be made that his approach was any different. By an large, Shanahan has targeted free agent veterans who've had something to prove, but were not necessarily the "top names".

Romanowski wasn't considered a "marquee" pick when he came to Denver. He was considered a retread whose production had fallen off after swindling Philidelphia, and whose best days were ahead of him. Alfred Williams had a couple of good years in Cincinnati in between a couple of bad years, and hadn't started a single game in San Fransico the year before we signed him. The talk around him was that he was high risk, high reward. The fan base universally laughed incredulously when we brought Keith Traylor in (who was drafted by Dan Reeves, cut after two seasons, bounced to Green Bay, cut there after 5 games, and ended up languishing on the Kansas City squad for two years - the guy had been a starter in a total of 6 games in the 5 years that he was a pro and 5 of them were with us in his first two seasons!)

I'm not sure who you are talking about when you try to make the case that Shanahan brought in a bunch of marquee guys to play defense. That's not what happened at all. He brought in a bunch of veteran retreads, many of which happened to pan out excellently.

I think that a case can be made that Shanahan had a better hit rate early on. But the idea that Shanahan had a "major change in philosophy" on defense from then to now - I don't see how that case can be made at all. I think you reveal your fuzzy memory on this matter when you talk about the "luring" in of players like Romanowski and Traylor as though they were hot commodities at the time that we signed them.

If you were making the case that the RESULTS were better early on, I don't think that can be argued. They clearly were. But to say that there was a major philisophical shift - that's a much harder case to make. I certainly don't believe that you've (capital letters) MADE that case.

SoCalBronco
02-23-2009, 11:05 PM
i won't say exciting, i think most interesting, and unsettled time since SB33.

A very fair and accurate (at least to me) description.

Taco John
02-23-2009, 11:06 PM
I will note that Neil Smith was an exception. But that was more of a case of Neil wanting to burn KC for snubbing him, and wanting to play with Elway. As I recall, Neil gave us a sweetheart deal because of these factors.

GreatBronco16
02-23-2009, 11:23 PM
Id be more exited about this season if shanny were coach


And just what exactly would you be more exited about? What exactly in the last three years would make you exited about this team if he was still in charge of all of it?

Popps
02-23-2009, 11:25 PM
I think you put too much stock in the idea that you've "MADE" such a case, considering the facts don't support such a case.
.

First off, you don't understand.

By "made," I don't mean proven. These are all opinions, Taco. Made, as in... given my opinion. You just aren't paying attention.

By made I meant... the idea of my approval of "one" Mike Shanahan and disapproval of the other isn't a new thing. That sentence related to Kaylore's off-base attempt mix the issues.

Again, I've stated probably hundreds of times around here that I loved early Shanahan philosophy and couldn't stand the later-day strategies. So, when Kaylore misunderstood the topic and tried to compare Shanahan of 2008 with McD of 2009 (and subsequently the analogy to mid-90s Shanahan)... he missed the boat.

Your latching onto the word "made" also missed the boat.

That said, I'll address your opinions...


Romanowski wasn't considered a "marquee" pick when he came to Denver. .

Romanowski wasn't the "marquee" pick I spoke about. So, while a phenomenally intelligent pick-up by Shanny, you missed the boat on this one.


I definitely agree that the latter day Shanahan had more misses on defense than he had hits. I just don't think that there's much of a case to be made that his approach was any different.


Again, you're welcome to your opinion, however incorrect it may be.

Shanahan used massive resources early and often from the time he set foot in Denver. He went after Perry/Jones first, then fired away with #1 picks in back to back drafts, and all the while... shopped intelligently for bargains as well as spending big money on guys like Neil Smith, who proved the final piece of the puzzle.

So, that's in stark contrast to signing Leon Lett, Sam Adams or a host of Cleveland Browns throw-aways, while ignoring the D-line in the first round for years upon years.

So, his approach was vastly different and his net result was vastly superior.

Again, you can disagree... as long as you're comfortable with being incorrect. It hasn't bothered you in the past, I suppose.


"luring" in of players like Romanowski and Traylor as though they were hot commodities at the time that we signed them


No one said they were "hot commodities." The point is, we had players coming to Denver at lesser salaries than they could have gotten elsewhere, Shanahan created a place where players WANTED to come play. He was masterful with his free agent signings.

In two seasons, he brought in: Romo, Pryce, Neil Smith, Braxton, Traylor, Mobley, Williams and a host of other high-quality role players ranging from Tanuvassa to Lodish, to high quality starters like Aldridge.

Contrast that with the same guy that's dumping giant salaries on ****-wads like Boss Bailey, starting John Engelberger and rotating a cast of scrubs on and off of the practice squad because his "starters" are so woefully inept that he barely has a pro team to field on Sundays.

See a little bit of a difference there, sport?

So, you go on ahead believing that Shanahan was doing everything the same in 08 as he was in 96. Don't let me be the one to ruin that ****ed up fantasy for you.

In the meanwhile, he's out of a job. Logic has prevailed, and whether or not you want to believe that his philosophy changed is really irrelevant. The right move was made.

GreatBronco16
02-23-2009, 11:30 PM
It's because of how 2005 ended that I voted for the beginning of the Cutler era.


Wait, weren't you against the beginning of the McD era?

Popps
02-23-2009, 11:30 PM
I will note that Neil Smith was an exception. But that was more of a case of Neil wanting to burn KC for snubbing him, and wanting to play with Elway. As I recall, Neil gave us a sweetheart deal because of these factors.

Not really.

Elway restructured his contract to fit Neil Smith on the team.

Oh, and then there was MDP, Shanahan's first hint that building the D was his objective and that we'd spend the $$ to do it.

The Denver Broncos have quit talking about improving their pass rush and have taken to shelling out hard cash -- $12 million in two days. The five-time Pro Bowl defensive tackle MICHAEL DEAN PERRY signed a three-year, $7.2 million contract with Denver late Friday.

Perry, who played seven seasons at Cleveland, was released by the Browns earlier in the month for salary cap reasons coupled with his history of knee and ankle injuries. But he is a prime-time Pro Bowler regarded as one of the more talented defensive lineman available as a free agent this year.

Just a day earlier, Denver signed Perry's former Browns teammate JAMES JONES to a three-year contract worth $4.75 million to play at the other defensive tackle.

Let's see, a big salary for one of the best linemen available in free agency.... or........ Simeon Rice.

Yea, pretty much the same philosophy. You're right dude.

Popps
02-23-2009, 11:32 PM
Wait, weren't you against the beginning of the McD era?

Well, he still likes Cutler because he hated Plummer and loved Griese but he thinks McD is a bust because he loved Shanahan.

Try to keep up, dude.

GreatBronco16
02-23-2009, 11:35 PM
Well, he still likes Cutler because he hated Plummer and loved Griese but he thinks McD is a bust because he loved Shanahan.

Try to keep up, dude.

Ohhh, I get it.

I'm just trying to figure out why going deep in the playoffs prompts him to want a change in QBs, but yet screwing up the past 4 years doesn't prompt him to want a change in head coaching.

Popps
02-23-2009, 11:37 PM
Ohhh, I get it.

I'm just trying to figure out why going deep in the playoffs prompts him to want a change in QBs, but yet screwing up the past 4 years doesn't prompt him to want a change in head coaching.

It's very complicated.

GreatBronco16
02-23-2009, 11:38 PM
Wait, you answered that question too. Damn, I'll have to come up with something else.:giggle:

Taco John
02-23-2009, 11:54 PM
Wait, weren't you against the beginning of the McD era?

I was against the firing of Shanahan, but I hold that against Pat, not against Josh.

Taco John
02-23-2009, 11:56 PM
Well, he still likes Cutler because he hated Plummer and loved Griese but he thinks McD is a bust because he loved Shanahan.

Try to keep up, dude.


I would think that I'd feel empty all the time if the only thing I could do to make a point was tell lies and exaggerate. I have to say, you seem to do it with a very full flare.

Taco John
02-24-2009, 12:00 AM
Oh, and then there was MDP, Shanahan's first hint that building the D was his objective and that we'd spend the $$ to do it.

I was hoping that you'd bring up Michael Dean Perry... The grandfather of the Browncos.

Like I said before, your memory of what they turned into clouds what they actually were when Mike brought them in.

You seem to think that there was some grand departure of philosophy - so tell me this - what's the difference between running out and paying MDP big money, and running out and paying Gardener big money?

So Michael Dean Perry is your answer to all of the "marquee players" that Shanahan supposedly brought in that signals the massive shift in philosophy from then and recent?

Yeah dude. It was an earth breaking shift in philosophy. You're on top of it.

Popps
02-24-2009, 12:11 AM
I was hoping that you'd bring up Michael Dean Perry... The grandfather of the Browncos.

Perry played well for us and beyond that, Shanahan spent $12 Mil in a few days, targeting one of the biggest free agents in the DL market.

But, yea... you're right. That's the same thing as signing Courtney Brown or Leon Lett. Good call.


You seem to think that there was some grand departure of philosophy - so tell me this - what's the difference between running out and paying MDP big money, and running out and paying Gardener big money? .

Well, one was a smart move and one was stupid?

Shanahan finally decided to open up the pocket book and pay someone on the D-line, and THAT'S what we get? A short stack of pancakes and some slob punched out.

Yea, again.. great analogy.

But, if you're saying that along with his change in philosophy as far as to how to ALLOCATE resources, he also begun making poor CHOICES when he DID allocate resources to defense... I'd agree with you there.

So, to recap...

Early Shanahan: Spends big money early and often on big names, smart names and high draft picks.

Late Shanahan: Scrapes the bottom of the toilet for whatever Browns are still sticking to the bowl.

Oh, I forgot Dale Carter. More proof that Shanahan hadn't lost his touch.

ROFL!

Yep, nothing changed. Just business as usual. Probably just blind luck that we won two SBs immediately and then barely fielded an NFL-caliber defense for the next 10 years.

Taco John
02-24-2009, 12:47 AM
Perry played well for us and beyond that, Shanahan spent $12 Mil in a few days, targeting one of the biggest free agents in the DL market.

But, yea... you're right. That's the same thing as signing Courtney Brown or Leon Lett. Good call.




Courtney Brown or Leon Lett are great examples of what I was talking about. They represent the same type of player that Shanahan brought in for the Superbowl years - veterans who had something to prove. They didn't work out like the early veterans did. But that's not the issue. This is about the supposed "philosophy" change.

Courtney Brown and Leon Lett demonstrate that the philosphy didn't change - the hit rate did.


Shanahan finally decided to open up the pocket book and pay someone on the D-line, and THAT'S what we get? A short stack of pancakes and some slob punched out.


You're mixing arguments. Do try to keep up. You said that you MADE the case that Shanahan had "A CLEAR AND VERY DISTINCT CHANGE OF PHILOSOPHY" (your bolded emphasis). What you haven't really been able to do is demonstrate this very clearly, or very distinctly (which is because there was no clear and distinct philosophy change). It's something that you clearly believe, because you keep repeating it. But no matter how many times you repeat it, the unfortunate thing for us reading it is that repeating things does not equate to "analysis."

But hey. Keep repeating it. There are people who fall for that stuff, and message boards are a numbers game when it comes to having to be right whether the facts support your case or not. Perception is reality, and there are a lot of people who will believe what you say because of how convinced you sound when you're saying it.

Popps
02-24-2009, 12:54 AM
You're mixing arguments. Do try to keep up. You said that you MADE the case that Shanahan had "A CLEAR AND VERY DISTINCT CHANGE OF PHILOSOPHY" (your bolded emphasis). What you haven't really been able to do is demonstrate this very clearly, or very distinctly.

Taco, again...

Shanahan immediately came in and signed top-flight DL prospects. He followed that up by doing more of the same, and designating two #1 picks to the defense.

You bringing up one ****-wad that he biffed on 8 years later doesn't change the reality of what happened.

Get it?

Again, YOU added the fact that his quality of results faded dramatically, not me.

I just agreed with you. So, when you tell me to "keep up," that's exactly what I'm doing.

I'm agreeing that in addition to his CLEARLY ILLUSTRATED philosophy of making defense a major priority in his early years, he ALSO seemed to lose all concept of who to bring in... and who NOT to.

So, we're both right. Isn't that wonderful?

Popps
02-24-2009, 01:05 AM
Even funnier, here's a guy you're telling me basically forgot how to do his job... and you wanted to keep him around?

What, couldn't wait to see us land the next Dale Carter, Kavika Pittman or Sam Adams?

Mike Shanahan signed and drafted more quality defenders in his FIRST THREE seasons in Denver than he did in his last ten.

So, if you want to argue that he just got stupid instead of changing his philosophy, that's your business and it's really a fairly moot point now, isn't it.

Atwater His Ass
02-24-2009, 04:22 AM
This has to be the least "exciting" time to be a Bronco's fan since the SB runs.

We are coming off an 8-8 season in which we impolded worse than any other Bronco team of the decade (and that's saying something about 2nd half colloapese) and lost our historic HoF caliber coach, turning to a 32 year old kid w/ no scouting department to fix what has been the worst defense since the 60's.

I mean really, wtf is there to be excited about?

Broncomutt
02-24-2009, 05:51 AM
Does scary = exciting? :kiddingme :kiddingme

If so then the answer is yes.

montrose
02-24-2009, 06:50 AM
DENVER is full of people who grew up somewhere else. Now they make Denver their home, and they bring their home town teams with them.

Obviously a different sport and team, but the Pepsi Center was absolutely taken over last night (during the Nuggets most successful season in franchise history) by fans chanting "Denver Sucks"

http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v2329/26/25/503279671/n503279671_1351542_7110.jpg

Tombstone RJ
02-24-2009, 07:08 AM
Obviously a different sport and team, but the Pepsi Center was absolutely taken over last night (during the Nuggets most successful season in franchise history) by fans chanting "Denver Sucks"

http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v2329/26/25/503279671/n503279671_1351542_7110.jpg

Bingo. This is what I'm talking about.

It's happening to the Broncos too.

Popps
02-24-2009, 09:37 AM
We've already established that's what you're saying. The question is "who?"

You're trying to talk in an authoritative voice about a so-called "CLEAR AND VERY DISTINCT CHANGE OF PHILOSOPHY" that you say happened with regards to defense. I'm trying to understand what this so-called "change in philosophy" was. So far, there's nothing clear and distinct about it.

Again, you can pretend not to understand if you want, Taco. Shanahan came into Denver and immediately attacked the defensive line and front with big $$, multiple signings and first round draft picks. Through most of the 2000s, the D-line got jack **** in free agency, absolutely NO first round picks and as you pointed out, not only did his philosophy change... his results went off a cliff.

So, you can ignore whatever realities you want to. It's just another bizarre place to dig your heels in. You're the guy that claims he should still be our coach and you're saying he's just basically become incompetent.

At least my outlook on what happened to him involves choices he made. You're just basically saying he turned stupid, and yet... you insist he should be kept around to "rebuild" our defense again?

As I said, you need to figure things out and get back to us when you get it straight.

Taco John
02-24-2009, 09:53 AM
Again, you can pretend not to understand if you want, Taco. Shanahan came into Denver and immediately attacked the defensive line and front with big $$, multiple signings and first round draft picks. Through most of the 2000s, the D-line got jack **** in free agency, absolutely NO first round picks and as you pointed out, not only did his philosophy change... his results went off a cliff.


There was no philosophy change. I've made that case actually using players and examples that show that it wasn't the philosophy that changed, but the hit rate of his philosophy.

There is no case that can be made for a philosophy change, which is why you've done everything you could do to avoid making that case and just relying on the hollow tactic of "look everybody knows it but you."

I was curious to get some sort of analysis of what constituted this "clear philosophy change." I can see that isn't going to happen - which is why I pulled my last comment. I know that you have a burning desire to be right when you post this stuff and will argue ad nauseum without bringing up a single fact, relying on insulting me as the tactic of last resort. I don't care to get into that kind of a discussion.

Tombstone RJ
02-24-2009, 10:34 AM
There was no philosophy change. I've made that case actually using players and examples that show that it wasn't the philosophy that changed, but the hit rate of his philosophy.

There is no case that can be made for a philosophy change, which is why you've done everything you could do to avoid making that case and just relying on the hollow tactic of "look everybody knows it but you."

I was curious to get some sort of analysis of what constituted this "clear philosophy change." I can see that isn't going to happen - which is why I pulled my last comment. I know that you have a burning desire to be right when you post this stuff and will argue ad nauseum without bringing up a single fact, relying on insulting me as the tactic of last resort. I don't care to get into that kind of a discussion.

I think you two are arguing the same thing from different view points. I agree with TJ that Shanny never really changed his philosophy in bringing in FAs to help the defense. This remains consistent with the overall team philosophy that Bowlen and Shanny preached from day one: The Broncos compete every year for a championship.

However, I can see Popps point too in that while Shanny was very successful in his early days of finding productive FAs on defense, he really started to make big mistakes after his two SB wins. In essence, Shanny believed the hype that he was the Mastermind and could do no wrong.

Perhaps this is where Shanny's basic ability to field a competitive defense clouded his judgement. Hence, Popps is on the right track thinking there was a "philosophical" change in how Shanny signed FAs (it was called ego).

Now, you two go play nice.

Popps
02-24-2009, 11:05 AM
There was no philosophy change. I've made that case actually using players and examples that show that it wasn't the philosophy that changed, but the hit rate of his philosophy.
.

Right, you've made a case. It's incorrect and ignores the facts at hand, but you have indeed made a case.


There is no case that can be made for a philosophy change, which is why you've done everything you could do to avoid making that c.

Sure there is. I've made it. I've laid out examples of us using first round draft picks, signing top free agent DEs and DTs.... as opposed to the later philosophy of poo-poo'ing the D-line with mid-round picks and signing scrub cast-offs.

In fact, Shanahan's defense "building" efforts became so pathetic, we became the object of jokes. (Browncos, etc.)

So, again... if you think scooping up other people's trash and signing middle round picks is the same as using FIRST round picks and signing "some of the best free agent" DL talent available... I don't know what to tell you.

His changed is philosophy... AND as you pointed out, became less and less effective.

Again, either way... he blew it. Why you want to hitch your wagon to this argument is anyone's guess.

relying on insulting me as the tactic of last resort. I don't care to get into that kind of a discussion.

Taco, I'm not insulting you. You're just incorrect. You've ignored examples... given improper counter-examples.

You're trying to tell us that signing Simeon Rice is the same as going after coveted FA's like Perry or Neil Smith.

Shanahan passed on guys like Ed Reed in favor of Ashlie Lelie and Marcus Nash. Polar opposite of how he built his team when he got to Denver.



More confusing than you being totally wrong here is why it matters to you so badly?

lex
02-24-2009, 11:12 AM
Dire

broncosteven
02-24-2009, 11:17 AM
Obviously a different sport and team, but the Pepsi Center was absolutely taken over last night (during the Nuggets most successful season in franchise history) by fans chanting "Denver Sucks"

http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v2329/26/25/503279671/n503279671_1351542_7110.jpg

Have you ever been to a Bronco road game and seen all the Bronco fans that are there with you?

I have been to a lot as I am 1,000 miles from Denver and it is amazing how well the Broncos fans either "travel" or live in the area.

This happens everywhere and is not an issue. When the NFL decides to deny access to non-home team fans then I will agree it is an issue.

Popps
02-24-2009, 11:19 AM
Iability to field a competitive defense clouded his judgement. Hence, Popps is on the right track thinking there was a "philosophical" change in how Shanny signed FAs (it was called ego).

Now, you two go play nice.

It's a pretty good round-up, and I clearly recognize Taco's point that we had a major quality drop-off that really never corrected itself.

But, my point related to the allocation of resources. That's where your philosophy plays out.

In the early days, Shanahan fired most of his guns at the defensive and offensive lines, and used bargain players to fill gaps.

Think about our three star offensive players during the SB run...

1. TD
2. Eddie Mac
3. Rod

All three were bargain basement finds.

Flash forward a few years... and you've got Shanahan blowing first round picks on Marcus Nash and Ashley Lelie.

Just go back and take a look at who he brought in... and in what order during the SB days.

Then, take a look at us over the past few seasons. High priced busts like Travis Henry, Javon Walker on offense.... and a defensive line full of total scrubs or cast-offs.

-Engleberger - Trash heap
-Thomas - Mid-round pick
-Robertson - Traded low round pick, cut after one season
-Dumervil - mid-round pick, situational player


So, we can all agree that the quality drop-off was drastic. But, if you look at the allocation of resources, you'll see that Shanahan prioritized guys like Perry, Neil Smith, Trevor Pryce, John Mobley... and on offense... even while having studs in place on the line, he goes out and acquires Tony Jones, etc.

Things changed from a priority-perspective. YES, he also begun swinging and missing regularly on guys like Ihop. but his priorities changed, as well. Even when we DID luck into some decent linemen like Berry and Hayward, Shanahan ran them out of town in favor of high priced cornerbacks and wide receivers.

So, I think it was both. YES, he seemed to lose his touch with regards to player analysis, but there was also a shift in the way he did business. It was both... and I'm just not sure what there is to be gained in arguing otherwise.

Taco John
02-24-2009, 11:21 AM
I think you two are arguing the same thing from different view points. I agree with TJ that Shanny never really changed his philosophy in bringing in FAs to help the defense. This remains consistent with the overall team philosophy that Bowlen and Shanny preached from day one: The Broncos compete every year for a championship.



We can't both be correct on this point. The discussion is whether or not there was a "CLEAR AND VERY DISTINCT CHANGE OF PHILOSOPHY". There's no dispute that the results early on were better than the results later on. My only point is that there was no "CLEAR AND VERY DISTINCT CHANGE OF PHILOSOPHY".

Popps
02-24-2009, 11:28 AM
We can't both be correct on this point. The discussion is whether or not there was a "CLEAR AND VERY DISTINCT CHANGE OF PHILOSOPHY". There's no dispute that the results early on were better than the results later on. My only point is that there was no "CLEAR AND VERY DISTINCT CHANGE OF PHILOSOPHY".

... and I've already given a laundry-list of irrefutable examples that we DID indeed approach things differently early in his tenure than we did through the later years.

But, Taco... let's put that aside for one moment.

The real question here is, what do you hope to gain by being right about this?
I mean... you're wrong, but if you WERE right, and instead of Shanahan having some philosophy shift, he just became stupid.... how do you feel that benefits you?

You're hitching your wagon to this topic for some reason. Very odd. Why is your case for Shanahan more sustainable if he's just a moron instead of having some control over what he did? Is this some sort of veiled insanity plea for the guy?

Kaylore
02-24-2009, 11:36 AM
Mike Shanahan's philosophy on defense never changed. If anything you could argue after the super-bowls he made it more of a priority. Before the Super Bowl run he only drafted two defensive lineman on the first day and one was Trevor Pryce.

After 1999 he took eight defensive linemen in the first four rounds, the majority were first and second round picks. Early in the 2000's we took a defensive lineman every year. That's to say nothing of the amount of money he threw at defensive line free agents.

Shanahan's problem wasn't his philosophy or a refusal to commit resources. It was that the guys he was committing resources to weren't talented. Basically Shanahan couldn't identify defensive talent.

Taco John
02-24-2009, 11:38 AM
... and I've already given a laundry-list of irrefutable examples that we DID indeed approach things differently early in his tenure than we did through the later years.

But, Taco... let's put that aside for one moment.

The real question here is, what do you hope to gain by being right about this?
I mean... you're wrong, but if you WERE right, and instead of Shanahan having some philosophy shift, he just became stupid.... how do you feel that benefits you?

You're hitching your wagon to this topic for some reason. Very odd. Why is your case for Shanahan more sustainable if he's just a moron instead of having some control over what he did? Is this some sort of veiled insanity plea for the guy?


I'm not trying to gain anything. I'm just in it to keep the facts straight. There was no "clear and distinct change of philosophy" on Defense. We didn't chase "marquee" defenders like you said. We did the same things that we had always done: looked for bargains from veterans who had something to prove. In the early days, these bargains panned out. In the later days, not so much. I think that the "CLEAR AND DISTINCT" difference between the early days and later days were the people helping to make the decisions. We lost some good front office guys from the earlier days to teams scavenging our front office due to our success. I don't think that their replacements were nearly as good (Ted Sundquist comes to mind). I think we were getting back on the right path with Jim Goodman.

I don't really gain anything from the conversation except to keep the facts straight and the enjoyment of watching you squirm in and out of positions and convolute the issue in your neverending quest to be right. There was no grand philosophy change. It was the same as it always was: find bargain basement free agent veterans hungry to win a Superbowl.

But the inverse of your question is interesting. What do you gain by pretending that you've made some case for a "CLEAR AND DISTINCT CHANGE IN PHILOSOPHY"?

Popps
02-24-2009, 11:47 AM
I'm not trying to gain anything. I'm just in it to keep the facts straight. There was no "clear and distinct change of philosophy" on Defense. [/b]

Well, you're incorrect. Shanahan built a championship team by dedicating resources heavily to the defensive (and offensive) lines including top FA picks and high draft picks.

He later abandoned that philosophy in favor of Simeon Rice and middle round picks.

So, you can disagree all you want, you're simply incorrect.


I don't really gain anything from the conversation except to keep the facts straight and the enjoyment of watching you squirm

By squirm, I assume you mean laying out factual examples instead your baseless assumptions.

I've used factual info, you've used your opinion.


But the inverse of your question is interesting. What do you gain by pretending that you've made some case for a "CLEAR AND DISTINCT CHANGE IN PHILOSOPHY"?

Ahhh... so you couldn't answer the question. Not a surprise, Taco. Par for course for you. If you actually answer a question, it paints you into a corner and you won't be able to flip-flop when you need to.

Want me to answer it? Sure.

First off, I've been saying this same thing since the early 2000s, Taco. I'm simply saying it because it's true.

Drafting Ashley Lelie over Ed Reed and signing Dale Carter instead of shoring up your defensive line is PROOF, it's not opinion. It's failed policy, clear and simple.

So, aside from actually keeping the facts straight... the concept of Shanahan changing up his approach falls in line with why I believe the organization needed a change. Had he approached things as he did early on, I believe he'd still be in Denver.

So, there you go. A straight answer. Didn't hurt a bit. You should give it a shot some day.

Kaylore
02-24-2009, 11:56 AM
His approach never changed. Neil Smith and Alfred Williams were bargain-bin guys. They just happened to work out. For every Ed Reed he didn't draft there is a Paul Toviessi and Montae Reagor that he did. Signing Ihop and letting Pryce walk. Trading away Drougns, and Portis for Bailey and the Browncos. These are all moves that are aimed at improving the defense. They were the wrong choices (except for Bailey).

Shanahan didn't ignore defense, he just was wrong more than he was right.

B-Love
02-24-2009, 11:57 AM
It's all Paul Toviessi's fault.

bowtown
02-24-2009, 12:01 PM
His approach never changed. Neil Smith and Alfred Williams were bargain-bin guys. They just happened to work out. For every Ed Reed he didn't draft there is a Paul Toviessi and Montae Reagor that he did. Signing Ihop and letting Pryce walk. Trading away Drougns, and Portis for Bailey and the Browncos. These are all moves that are aimed at improving the defense. They were the wrong choices (except for Bailey).

Shanahan didn't ignore defense, he just was wrong more than he was right.

I don't think the Browncos were the wrong move.

Kaylore
02-24-2009, 12:01 PM
It's all Paul Toviessi's fault.

And I-hop.

But most all, we could have had ED REEEEEEEEEEEDDD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:vermeil:

broncosteven
02-24-2009, 12:03 PM
I still think Bronco fans are spoiled. We are bitching about not winning the SB in 10+ years while there are teams that haven't won in 40 or more years.

Just think if you grew up in Detroit, or your daddy did his sister and you popped out in KFC, in the back seat of his buddy's 1977 Camero!

Then you would appreciate real pain.

Taco John
02-24-2009, 12:12 PM
So, you can disagree all you want, you're simply incorrect.






Me and everybody else, apparently...

B-Love
02-24-2009, 12:22 PM
Both camps here are right in their own way, which is also why this debate will just be another board circle jerk, with no one convincing the other of anything.

I agree with Kaylore and Taco that I don't think Shanahan de-emphasized Defense, etc. or there was any pertinent change in philosophy, i.e. the success rate was just better.

However, Shanahan's efforts seemed more "fitted" to needs back then.

What Shanahan did in 1995-96 to the Front 7 was brilliantly calculated in terms of scheme and use of talent.

I remember listening to Sports Radio before the start of the 1996 season and a prominent GM around the league said he had never seen a "Terrible Defense" address all of its' needs in two seasons like the Broncos did. And he stunned the NY Sports Radio hosts when he said he thought the Broncos would finish 1996 with the best record in the AFC.

The windbag Radio hosts in New York were looking at Denver as an 8-8 team from the prior year and didn't see the 95 and 96 Defensive acquisitions as being that great.

But this GM, (can't remember who it was), said that Denver addressed EVERY pressing need in two Off Seasons.

He said Denver made less Defensive Plays behind the LOS than any team in the league, so they went out and got the top DL Knifer, at the LOS, in Michael Dean Perry. He said Perry made more plays behind the LOS in the Run game than any other Tackle in Football.

He then said Denver's right side Pass Rushers were the worst in Football, especially with the decline of Simon Fletcher's skills. So in 1996, Denver added two highly skilled athletes for the Right Side in Alfred Williams and John Mobley.

He then said Denver had the worst 3rd Down Pass Pocket Collapsing ability in all of the NFL, and they went out in 1996 and got the best Pocket Collapser in football, perhaps in football history with Jumpy Geathers.

He then said Denver had poor Pass Coverage Linebackers and had no mean streak on D, and Bill Romanowski fit the bill perfectly in both of those areas.

This GM was right, the improvement of Denver's Front 7 between 1994 and 1996 may have been one of the most dramatic in football history. Does anyone think Chicken Braxton leading the AFC in Picks in 1996, was because of sheer talent and reads?

Courtney Brown, Leon Lett, Dale Carter and Daryl Gardener all exemplify Declarations of Intent at later periods, but there did not seem to be a discernable fit for their talents.

Popps
02-24-2009, 12:23 PM
Me and everybody else, apparently...

Really? I haven't seen anyone agree. I've seen one person say we're both right.

You've provided no proof, only your opinion. I've given facts that you can't refute.

So, you're welcome to remain confused about the issue. Again, why you pick this as a stronghold is anyone's guess.

But, if it makes you feel better to think Shanhaan was just an idiot instead of having control of his strategy, then have at it.

B-Love
02-24-2009, 12:28 PM
Also, Greg Robinson amy have made more of a difference than what we are aware.

Richard Smith was our DC in 1995 right?? Robinson came along in 1996. I think anyway. Since the majority of the moves came in 96, I wonder how many Robinson had his hands on.

Besides Perry, and maybe Cadrez, the rest of the 1995 moves were relative dogmeat. Dante Jones, Britt Hager, etc. I guess Lionel Washington was decent, certainly an improvement over Ben Smith.

But Romo, Alfred, Jumpy and Mobley all in one year? Wow!! Great adds and great fits.

Popps
02-24-2009, 12:31 PM
Also, Greg Robinson amy have made more of a difference than what we are aware.


Agree, here. I also think Shanahan was getting a lot of help with personnel/scouting/drafting back then, and I've always wondered from whom.

His eye for talent was never really the same after those seasons. Would love to have been a fly on the wall back in those days.

My gut feeling (and just speculation) is that Shanahan relied heavily on those around him early on, and then developed a more go-it-alone approach as time went on.

Kaylore
02-24-2009, 12:36 PM
B-love nailed it. The recipe Shanahan brought here was what the team needed at the time. It was the perfect answer to issues at defense that we'd be plagued with. The cupboard wasn't bare, we just needed enough guys on D to compliment the dominating offense. We got some hungry veterans with a bit left in the tank that were willing to come in at a discount.

The problem is that philosophy was right for the team at that time. As soon as the team changed a different one was needed but Shanahan never changed. That team at that time was very unique and the same ways to build a team can't be applied again and again. Throw in that he couldn't evaluate defensive talent and it's really why we never got anything going. The best move he did was promote Coyer.

Little known fact: Larry Coyer would frequently go over Ray Rhodes game plans and correct them for him.

Traveler
02-24-2009, 12:42 PM
Little known fact: Larry Coyer would frequently go over Ray Rhodes game plans and correct them for him.

Really? Source, if you can provide one without outing them?

Popps
02-24-2009, 12:44 PM
His approach never changed. Neil Smith and Alfred Williams were bargain-bin guys.

LOL

Smith was so expensive K.C. had to cut him. Elway renegotiated his salary to fit the guy in. I think his base salary was around 1.5 mil with incentives up to 3 mil, which I'd guess he made. Remember, this was over 10 years ago.

Williams wasn't expensive, but he wasn't bargain bin, either. Most thought we overpaid for him.

Beyond that, you're also omitting the Perry signing (a coveted top FA at the DL spot) We also used a first round pick on Pryce and Mobley.

Again, we're talking about a concentration of moves, like B-Love mentioned.
We built all of this in a matter of a couple years.

We went periods of YEARS in the 2000s without making a serious move to address the front seven.

If that's not a change in philosophy, I don't know what is.

But again, whether or not it's a policy shift or just Shanahn losing his touch... the end results justify his being relieved of his duties.

Popps
02-24-2009, 12:46 PM
B-love nailed it. The recipe Shanahan brought here was what the team needed at the time. It was the perfect answer to issues at defense that we'd be plagued with. The cupboard wasn't bare, we just needed enough guys on D to compliment the dominating offense. We got some hungry veterans with a bit left in the tank that were willing to come in at a discount.

The problem is that philosophy was right for the team at that time. As soon as the team changed a different one was needed but Shanahan never changed. That team at that time was very unique and the same ways to build a team can't be applied again and again. Throw in that he couldn't evaluate defensive talent and it's really why we never got anything going. The best move he did was promote Coyer.

Little known fact: Larry Coyer would frequently go over Ray Rhodes game plans and correct them for him.


I agree, Blove did nail it... and I've said plainly that I believe it was a little bit of both. (Policy change AND just ****ing up.)

The point is, our team desperately needed to return to that approach... and never did.

So, the end result... we struggled mightily on defense for years and now he's gone.

Kaylore
02-24-2009, 12:57 PM
Smith wasn't that expensive. It was comparable to Lynch's salary as a free agent vis-a-vis other safety's at the time. KC cut him because like every NFL salary, his was back-loaded and had ballooned beyond his worth. He didn't get anywhere near what he would have received had he remained a chief. Elway adjusted his salary because he wanted to win and we were carrying four or five hall of famers on the team, so we didn't have a lot of room.

And again, there was never a philosophy change on defense or free agency. Shanahan was just wrong too much.

Taco John
02-24-2009, 01:17 PM
Really? I haven't seen anyone agree. I've seen one person say we're both right.


Hahaha! You are a crack up!



I have pointed out A CLEAR AND VERY DISTINCT CHANGE OF PHILOSOPHY between Mike Shanahan of the mid 90s and Mike Shanahan of today.


There was no philosophy change. We can't both be correct on this point. The discussion is whether or not there was a "CLEAR AND VERY DISTINCT CHANGE OF PHILOSOPHY". There wasn't.

I agree with TJ that Shanny never really changed his philosophy in bringing in FAs to help the defense.

Mike Shanahan's philosophy on defense never changed.


I agree with Kaylore and Taco that I don't think Shanahan de-emphasized Defense, etc. or there was any pertinent change in philosophy, i.e. the success rate was just better.




So, you can disagree all you want, you're simply incorrect.



Me and everybody else, apparently...

Really? I haven't seen anyone agree. I've seen one person say we're both right.

Popps
02-24-2009, 01:20 PM
Smith wasn't that expensive. It was comparable to Lynch's salary as a free agent vis-a-vis other safety's at the time. KC cut him because like every NFL salary, his was back-loaded and had ballooned beyond his worth. He didn't get anywhere near what he would have received had he remained a chief. Elway adjusted his salary because he wanted to win and we were carrying four or five hall of famers on the team, so we didn't have a lot of room.

And again, there was never a philosophy change on defense or free agency. Shanahan was just wrong too much.

But, you're comparing a safety to a DL.

That somewhat supports the case I'm making. Shanahan spent heavy resources (be it money, high draft picks or just SMART and MANY picks) on the front seven.

Later, we got wide receivers, first round CBs, high priced secondary players, etc.

I believe Shanahan got to Denver with the idea of building the team from the lines----out. I also believe he stopped using his own (or whomever's) strategy.

We can get bogged down in the minutia of Smith's salary, if you want. Point remains, he was clearly a talented player... we paid him well and a lot of us around the boards said he was the final piece of the puzzle.

In other words, he wasn't some washed up slob that should have retired two years earlier like Leon Lett, or some talentless bum like Kavika Pittman.

Popps
02-24-2009, 01:22 PM
Taco,

Kaylore flat out disagreed with me. The other two guys you quoted gave my argument as much credit as yours.

What, is this how you evaluate your self worth? How many people agree with you? Is that what makes you feel better?

So far, you've got one. Woo hoo!!

Just give it up, dude. You had your chance to prove a point with facts and chose nonsense.

Taco John
02-24-2009, 01:29 PM
Taco,

Kaylore flat out disagreed with me. The other two guys you quoted gave my argument as much credit as yours.

What, is this how you evaluate your self worth? How many people agree with you? Is that what makes you feel better?

So far, you've got one. Woo hoo!!

Just give it up, dude. You had your chance to prove a point with facts and chose nonsense.


Such a tantrum. I can't help it if nobody thinks that your analysis that there was a "clear and distinct change in philosophy" is accurate.

Traveler
02-24-2009, 01:29 PM
You two need some marriage counseling.:P

Tombstone RJ
02-24-2009, 01:35 PM
His approach never changed. Neil Smith and Alfred Williams were bargain-bin guys. They just happened to work out. For every Ed Reed he didn't draft there is a Paul Toviessi and Montae Reagor that he did. Signing Ihop and letting Pryce walk. Trading away Drougns, and Portis for Bailey and the Browncos. These are all moves that are aimed at improving the defense. They were the wrong choices (except for Bailey).

Shanahan didn't ignore defense, he just was wrong more than he was right.

Hence my opinion that his ego got in the way of his judgement. He thought he was smarter than eveyone else, and he made lousy decisions.

Its not that he didn't try, he did. But, he either didn't listen to his staff, or he didn't hire a good staff to help him (perhaps a bunch of yes men).

Popps
02-24-2009, 01:53 PM
Hence my opinion that his ego got in the way of his judgement. He thought he was smarter than eveyone else, and he made lousy decisions.

Its not that he didn't try, he did. But, he either didn't listen to his staff, or he didn't hire a good staff to help him (perhaps a bunch of yes men).

Interesting points.

To me, further proof of a change of approach... and as Blove was pointing out, you have to wonder looking back just how much of the success was due to those around him. (As it always is, to some extent.)

Hotrod
03-02-2009, 01:21 PM
Interesting Ha!