PDA

View Full Version : Krieger: McD's wisdom on trial in draft


Bronco Rob
04-27-2009, 08:19 AM
Even Carmelo Anthony now believes that defense wins championships. He said so just the other night.

New Broncos coach Josh McDaniels does not. He believes the Broncos will win or lose as a 53-man team, not because of any particular unit.

This is why he ended up taking six offensive players and four defensive players in the NFL draft, even though, based on last season's production, defense was clearly the greater team need.

Equally glaring was the fact that three of the four new Broncos defenders play in the secondary, where McDaniels had already signed three starters in free agency.

Of the 10 players he drafted, only one plays in the defensive front seven, the weakest aspect of the 2008 Broncos other than special teams.

This will be one of the two most second-guessable McDaniels decisions during the draft. The other will be trading the Broncos' 2010 first-round pick for the 2009 second-round pick he used on cornerback Alphonso Smith.

If the Broncos struggle this year, this will turn out to be a high first-round pick, possibly high enough to grab a franchise quarterback prospect to replace Jay Cutler a year from now.

I asked McDaniels about both of these decisions at the conclusion of the draft Sunday night to get his explanations on the record.

Aware that he found more value in the players he picked than in the defensive linemen or linebackers available, I asked if, nevertheless, he passed up candidates for the front seven who are better than what he has now.

"Very rarely," he said. "I don't think this was a very deep draft in terms of players that would have fit our system in those areas. . . . I don't really think you want to draft somebody just because he plays a certain position unless you feel that player's got good value for your team and is going to come in and make you better.

"So there may have been a few times where there was a discussion, but we're not looking to draft players to cut them, I know that. And we're certainly not looking to draft players early to cut them.

"So if the player's not going to come in and be able to compete and beat out somebody on our roster, or at least have a good chance to try to do that and make our team, then we're going to definitely go in a different direction and we're going to draft somebody we feel can make a difference. And that's what we did."

On the trade of next year's first-round pick, I asked if McDaniels tried to get Seattle to accept whichever turns out to be the later of the two first-round picks Denver's or Chicago's that the Broncos controlled at the time.

"There was a little discussion about that, but we agreed that the pick could be ours," he said. "After talking it through with the other team, we felt like, that's OK, we'll roll the dice."

I asked if that decision reflected an expectation on McDaniels' part as to where those picks will be.

"No, it doesn't," he said. "I have no idea where Chicago's pick is going to be. And I don't have the foresight to know where our pick is going to be. I hope it's later, but you don't know.

"We just felt like, at that point, to haggle over something like that, it may not turn out in your favor, but it may. So after discussing it with them we said, 'All right, let's go ahead and do it.' "

McDaniels denied that financial considerations played any role in that trade.

It will be awhile before we know for sure whether these were sound decisions. My own guess is that the Bears will be better than the Broncos this season, and therefore that McDaniels should have held out to trade either the Bears' pick or the later of the two if he was going to make that trade at all.

Similarly, it looks to me like the failure to fortify the front seven through either free agency or the draft foreshadows another long year of softness against the run.

Either way, the outcome of these issues, not to mention the comparative performances of Cutler and Kyle Orton, will go a long way toward helping us figure out if the self-confident young coach knows what he's doing.



http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_12234582

Paladin
04-27-2009, 08:29 AM
When I read Krieger lately, I hear the theme song from "Jaws" in the background. Krieger was so hurt by the loss of Shanhan and his favored position as a house writer that he is out to get McD any which way he can. The man is a shark in the waters. I do not think he is being an "objective reporter". The Post writers are feeding into the hysteria in the fan base which feeds some of our lesser "contributors" on this board, those who have no clue and incessantly whine and criticize. Criticism is okay, but the degree of hateful rhetoric is disturbing. His column should be in the OPED pages.

It, in a word, sucks.

Smiling Assassin27
04-27-2009, 08:37 AM
My advice would be to temper your immediate expectations. Demanding a division winner is probably premature. Demanding a competitive team is not, and I think we will have that. This is a team in transition, that is completely making itself over in every way. Pieces were added yesterday and more pieces will be added next off-season that will get us closer to waht McD actually wants--but that makeover won't happen in one offseason. Let the guy do his thing. Even Belichick's first season in NE was 5-11. We don't need to see these picks become pro bowlers in one season, we just need them to buy into a new philosophy and contribute, at this point.

colonelbeef
04-27-2009, 08:40 AM
When I read Krieger lately, I hear the theme song from "Jaws" in the background. Krieger was so hurt by the loss of Shanhan and his favored position as a house writer that he is out to get McD any which way he can. The man is a shark in the waters. I do not think he is being an "objective reporter". The Post writers are feeding into the hysteria in the fan base which feeds some of our lesser "contributors" on this board, those who have no clue and incessantly whine and criticize. Criticism is okay, but the degree of hateful rhetoric is disturbing. His column should be in the OPED pages.

It, in a word, sucks.

What is so hateful about this? This article is objective and factual to say the least.

lex
04-27-2009, 08:48 AM
When I read Krieger lately, I hear the theme song from "Jaws" in the background. Krieger was so hurt by the loss of Shanhan and his favored position as a house writer that he is out to get McD any which way he can. The man is a shark in the waters. I do not think he is being an "objective reporter". The Post writers are feeding into the hysteria in the fan base which feeds some of our lesser "contributors" on this board, those who have no clue and incessantly whine and criticize. Criticism is okay, but the degree of hateful rhetoric is disturbing. His column should be in the OPED pages.

It, in a word, sucks.


Why is it that any criticism of McDaniels gets this kind of response? He said time will tell.

lex
04-27-2009, 08:51 AM
My advice would be to temper your immediate expectations. Demanding a division winner is probably premature. Demanding a competitive team is not, and I think we will have that. This is a team in transition, that is completely making itself over in every way. Pieces were added yesterday and more pieces will be added next off-season that will get us closer to waht McD actually wants--but that makeover won't happen in one offseason. Let the guy do his thing. Even Belichick's first season in NE was 5-11. We don't need to see these picks become pro bowlers in one season, we just need them to buy into a new philosophy and contribute, at this point.

For McDaniels to do what he has done, he only ratchets up expectations. You dont get a pass for problems that are of your own making. Because of McDaniels draft, people will no longer focus on how the defense was poor when he became head coach. Now people will focus on him not doing anything about it.

Kaylore
04-27-2009, 09:10 AM
The bottom line is McDaniels didn't like this draft for defensive tackles. Frankly I don't blame him. In his mind, rather than waste a pick on a DT he felt wouldn't make the roster, he took a player that he felt would have a better chance of being good.

Some felt he should have taken a DT "because OMG he HAS 2!!" regardless of whether we liked them or not. The thing is do you do that to appease the masses even if they suck? I would say no.

So really this comes down to talent evaluation. If any DT that we passed on and could have had emerges as a solid player in the 3-4, then it shows he has issues recognizing talent up front. In that sense he is on trial. If the players we got turn out to be studs and none of the tackles we past on work out, then he did the responsible thing and no one can complain - even if NT is a problem this year.

lex
04-27-2009, 09:12 AM
The bottom line is McDaniels didn't like this draft for defensive tackles. Frankly I don't blame him. In his mind, rather than waste a pick on a DT he felt wouldn't make the roster, he took a player that he felt would have a better chance of being good.

Some felt he should have taken a DT "because OMG he HAS 2!!" regardless of whether we liked them or not. The thing is do you do that to appease the masses even if they suck? I would say no.

So really this comes down to talent evaluation. If any DT that we passed on and could have had emerges as a solid player in the 3-4, then it shows he has issues recognizing talent up front. In that sense he is on trial. If the players we got turn out to be studs and none of the tackles we past on work out, then he did the responsible thing and no one can complain - even if NT is a problem this year.

Were it not for the fact that Il Duce's master took 3 DTs, you might have a point with that line of thinking. But since 3 DTs were good enough for Belichick, that kind of thinking falls flat on its face.

Tombstone RJ
04-27-2009, 09:20 AM
The bottom line is McDaniels didn't like this draft for defensive tackles. Frankly I don't blame him. In his mind, rather than waste a pick on a DT he felt wouldn't make the roster, he took a player that he felt would have a better chance of being good.

Some felt he should have taken a DT "because OMG he HAS 2!!" regardless of whether we liked them or not. The thing is do you do that to appease the masses even if they suck? I would say no.

So really this comes down to talent evaluation. If any DT that we passed on and could have had emerges as a solid player in the 3-4, then it shows he has issues recognizing talent up front. In that sense he is on trial. If the players we got turn out to be studs and none of the tackles we past on work out, then he did the responsible thing and no one can complain - even if NT is a problem this year.

Another valid point is to look at the Patriots draft. Now the Pats did pick up Brace, but basically all their picks were luxury picks. They did not draft any players based on need. So, they took a flyer on Brace because they really don't need Brace. If he pans out, well the Pats look like geniuses, if he flops, no biggy.

I really, really like it when a the Broncos take the best player available, regardless of need, and that is exactly why the Bronco drafted Moreno with the first pick, even though Orakpo was sitting there.

Obviously, the Broncos felt that Moreno was a much better value than Orakpo, so they took him. Kudos to McD for staying focused.

Tombstone RJ
04-27-2009, 09:22 AM
Were it not for the fact that Il Duce's master took 3 DTs, you might have a point with that line of thinking. But since 3 DTs were good enough for Belichick, that kind of thinking falls flat on its face.

Read my post #9. Pats took the dlineman because they didn't need them.

Kaylore
04-27-2009, 09:28 AM
Another valid point is to look at the Patriots draft. Now the Pats did pick up Brace, but basically all their picks were luxury picks. They did not draft any players based on need. So, they took a flyer on Brace because they really don't need Brace. If he pans out, well the Pats look like geniuses, if he flops, no biggy.

I really, really like it when a the Broncos take the best player available, regardless of need, and that is exactly why the Bronco drafted Moreno with the first pick, even though Orakpo was sitting there.

Obviously, the Broncos felt that Moreno was a much better value than Orakpo, so they took him. Kudos to McD for staying focused.

Part of that is the Pats are already a good team. It's one of the reasons they can afford to trade into next years' draft. They didn't like the talent this year and they didn't really have a huge need anywhere either.

TheReverend
04-27-2009, 09:30 AM
The bottom line is McDaniels didn't like this draft for defensive tackles. Frankly I don't blame him. In his mind, rather than waste a pick on a DT he felt wouldn't make the roster, he took a player that he felt would have a better chance of being good.

Some felt he should have taken a DT "because OMG he HAS 2!!" regardless of whether we liked them or not. The thing is do you do that to appease the masses even if they suck? I would say no.

So really this comes down to talent evaluation. If any DT that we passed on and could have had emerges as a solid player in the 3-4, then it shows he has issues recognizing talent up front. In that sense he is on trial. If the players we got turn out to be studs and none of the tackles we past on work out, then he did the responsible thing and no one can complain - even if NT is a problem this year.

That's why you have a good handle on these evaluations by the time FA opens up.

If he REALLY felt that the rookie DT crop was weak, make a run at Canti or Olshansky, or at least some back up depth beyond Fields. That didn't happen... the onus is now on him.

TheReverend
04-27-2009, 09:31 AM
Another valid point is to look at the Patriots draft. Now the Pats did pick up Brace, but basically all their picks were luxury picks. They did not draft any players based on need. So, they took a flyer on Brace because they really don't need Brace. If he pans out, well the Pats look like geniuses, if he flops, no biggy.

I really, really like it when a the Broncos take the best player available, regardless of need, and that is exactly why the Bronco drafted Moreno with the first pick, even though Orakpo was sitting there.

Obviously, the Broncos felt that Moreno was a much better value than Orakpo, so they took him. Kudos to McD for staying focused.

The Pats took Brace because they're letting Wilfork walk next season. It's foresight.

Kaylore
04-27-2009, 09:37 AM
That's why you have a good handle on these evaluations by the time FA opens up.

If he REALLY felt that the rookie DT crop was weak, make a run at Canti or Olshansky, or at least some back up depth beyond Fields. That didn't happen... the onus is now on him.

Makes you wonder if there was a disconnect as a result of the Goodman incident. Like maybe somehow that hurt the time period between these two.

footstepsfrom#27
04-27-2009, 09:38 AM
When I read Krieger lately, I hear the theme song from "Jaws" in the background. Krieger was so hurt by the loss of Shanhan and his favored position as a house writer that he is out to get McD any which way he can. The man is a shark in the waters. I do not think he is being an "objective reporter". The Post writers are feeding into the hysteria in the fan base which feeds some of our lesser "contributors" on this board, those who have no clue and incessantly whine and criticize. Criticism is okay, but the degree of hateful rhetoric is disturbing. His column should be in the OPED pages.

It, in a word, sucks.
Shanahan failed to adequately address the front 7 also and got fired for it but the argument McDaniels is making sounds remarkably like the one Mike used to make. I guess since the perception he's leaving is one that insists on the BPA being the choice...how can anyone then say that Shanahan did the wrong thing?

Answer...because he did.

Now let's apply the same standard to the new regime.

TheReverend
04-27-2009, 09:41 AM
Makes you wonder if there was a disconnect as a result of the Goodman incident. Like maybe somehow that hurt the time period between these two.

The Goodman incident was inexcusable as was. If it caused a rift this big where it interfered with our performance this off-season, then it's completely inexcusable.

Tombstone RJ
04-27-2009, 09:42 AM
The Pats took Brace because they're letting Wilfork walk next season. It's foresight.

It's a luxury pick, plane and simple.

TheReverend
04-27-2009, 10:07 AM
It's a luxury pick, plane and simple.

If you want to call trying to avoid paying over 80 million dollars to one player a luxury, then yeah, I completely agree.

socalorado
04-27-2009, 10:14 AM
If you want to call trying to avoid paying over 80 million dollars to one player a luxury, then yeah, I completely agree.

Yeah, the second i saw that, i realized Wilfork is looong gone.
He'll show his worth and get a nice payday.
Brace will (hypothetically) take over.

Rohirrim
04-27-2009, 10:14 AM
It's a luxury pick, plane and simple.

The Pats have always made picks that keep the budget down.

As far as the Krieger thing goes, it's too generalized to be much use. All coaches are on the hot seat. How they draft and wins/losses determines their longevity in the league. Lil Mac has started out very bold. He's pushed all his chips into the center of the table. I figure he's got two seasons to show his cards.

gyldenlove
04-27-2009, 10:14 AM
What is better, a top CB or an average DT?

Most people would say a player who is tops at his position is better than a player who is very average at his position if those positions have about equal importance.

What is the situation is that you have a solid defensive backfield but no starter worthy defensive linemen, do you still take a top CB over an average DT?

Well even a top CB will only improve your team slightly while an upgrade from a bad to an average DT can improve your team a lot.

Mcdaniels said in an interview after the start of free agency that he would focus on defensive line in the draft, especially he wanted the front to get bigger, that is why he didn't go hard after any of the top DL players in free agency. Now that we have seen the draft come and go and not gotten bigger at the DL, I have to question Mcdaniels strategy.

Clearly he identified early on that size on the defensive line was inadequate and probably talent level as well, yet both chances to fix the problem have come and gone and nothing has changed. You can spin that any way you want, but I question the wisdom in going into the season with a mixture of people who sucked last year and rejects (low price FAs and UDFAs).

gyldenlove
04-27-2009, 10:18 AM
The Pats have always made picks that keep the budget down.

As far as the Krieger thing goes, it's too generalized to be much use. All coaches are on the hot seat. How they draft and wins/losses determines their longevity in the league. Lil Mac has started out very bold. He's pushed all his chips into the center of the table. I figure he's got two seasons to show his cards.

You are right he is pretty much all in, and I think that if he turns over a 4-12 combo he will be looking for a new job in January.

When you bet big you win big, but you also lose painfully.

If the offense flounders it will be squarely on Mcdaniels, if the defense doesn't pick up it will be squarely on Mcdaniels. If he gets both units working it will be squarely on him and will probably buy him an extension after year 2 of his deal.

Mediator12
04-27-2009, 10:19 AM
It's a luxury pick, plane and simple.

Well, all 3 starting DL are FA's next year. Wilfork, Ty Warren, and Seymour. Plus, they lost a valuable Backup DE in FA this year. You might call that luxury picks, I call that replacing talent as they can. Brace will compete as a NT and the other 2 DT's they picked up in Pryor and Richard are insurance picks @ 5 tech DE or 4-3 DT when they play that.

Taco John
04-27-2009, 10:34 AM
My advice would be to temper your immediate expectations.



The hell with that. We're trading first round value for second round picks in a weak draft. That's not the move of a team trying to temper expectations. That's the move of a team saying "this is what we need to win THIS YEAR."

McDaniels words and actions say "we can win now." And that's what I personally expect. If we don't win, and next year we're watching the Seahawks drafting in our high spot, the fans are going to be livid. McDaniels doesn't have the luxury of "tempering expectations" right now. And frankly, I don't think he wants anyone to do that. I think he's sincere that we can win now, and for everyone's sake, I hope that he's right. But if the Seahawks are drafting in a top ten spot next year and Alphonso Smith isn't panning out, there's going to be plenty of grumbling.

Tombstone RJ
04-27-2009, 10:36 AM
Well, all 3 starting DL are FA's next year. Wilfork, Ty Warren, and Seymour. Plus, they lost a valuable Backup DE in FA this year. You might call that luxury picks, I call that replacing talent as they can. Brace will compete as a NT and the other 2 DT's they picked up in Pryor and Richard are insurance picks @ 5 tech DE or 4-3 DT when they play that.

The Pats aren't gonna let all three players walk plus, they still have next year's draft to replace one or two of these guys, if need be.

Basically, they have two drafts to find replacements, plus the guys already on their roster (Green, Smith, Adams and Wright).

Archer81
04-27-2009, 10:42 AM
The Pats aren't gonna let all three players walk plus, they still have next year's draft to replace one or two of these guys, if need be.

Basically, they have two drafts to find replacements, plus the guys already on their roster (Green, Smith, Adams and Wright).


Thinking of the three, they'd probably let go of warren.


:Broncos:

BroncoBuff
04-27-2009, 10:45 AM
McD wouldda got killed if he had insisted they take Chicago's pick.

But a shrewd, experienced GM would have insisted on the lower of the two, and Seattle would've done it :(

BroncoBuff
04-27-2009, 10:47 AM
I truly believe McD and Nolan are gonna put Ayers at 3-4 DE.

McD was quoted as saying Ayers "plays bigger" than his size.

Why would he say that if he's slotting Ayers at SOLB? If Ayers is a SOLB, there would be no reason to say he "plays bigger."

Hulamau
04-27-2009, 11:20 AM
Were it not for the fact that Il Duce's master took 3 DTs, you might have a point with that line of thinking. But since 3 DTs were good enough for Belichick, that kind of thinking falls flat on its face.

Not at all! First Belicheck is mostly getting backups on board, he has a mature and well balanced team ALREADY, his priorities in other areas are not so pressing. He has spent years building and maintaining the kind of core depth that has been the heart and soul of the Pats consistency.... I.E. just what Josh was doing this weekend for us.

So Belicheck could take a flyer on some DL development projects. Josh got his DL projects in UFA and went with more talented guys in the skill positions to start building a solid core here. Including arguably the best pass rusher in the draft, particulkarly one who can play OLB as well as DE, in Ayers. These are all guys he drafted this weekend that can contribute right away on ST and get ready to start if an when ready and needed.

That is how you build a successful football team. Not simply stretching for warm bodies to fill a specific need when the guy you really want isn't there at your pick and another guy you do want somewhere else is.

This isn't rocket science to understand!

Elway777
04-27-2009, 11:55 AM
"After talking it through with the other team, we felt like, that's OK, we'll roll the dice." If good to Know we have a gambler running the Bronco franchise that is willing to play craps with Denver team by trading our Franchise Qb and also willing to trade away a possible top 5 pick for a nickle Corner.

lex
04-27-2009, 11:59 AM
Not at all! First Belicheck is mostly getting backups on board, he has a mature and well balanced team ALREADY, his priorities in other areas are not so pressing. He has spent years building and maintaining the kind of core depth that has been the heart and soul of the Pats consistency.... I.E. just what Josh was doing this weekend for us.

So Belicheck could take a flyer on some DL development projects. Josh got his DL projects in UFA and went with more talented guys in the skill positions to start building a solid core here. Including arguably the best pass rusher in the draft, particulkarly one who can play OLB as well as DE, in Ayers. These are all guys he drafted this weekend that can contribute right away on ST and get ready to start if an when ready and needed.

That is how you build a successful football team. Not simply stretching for warm bodies to fill a specific need when the guy you really want isn't there at your pick and another guy you do want somewhere else is.

This isn't rocket science to understand!

Where you lose traction with all this is that most Dlinemen take a couple of years to contribute in a meaningful way. And thats the case with first rounders. Its very rare that a DLineman dominates from the outset. And if there is one, he is extremely likely to go very high in the draft. If he's waiting for that guy, he really needed that pick as ammo to move up. As it is, he's got to sign a FA but dominant DLinemen rarely see the FA market also. So being frivolous with that pick creates a problem and the whole tmv concept he invoked woud have also applied to DL.

Paladin
04-27-2009, 12:23 PM
Now let's apply the same standard to the new regime.

Fair enough, but shouldn't McD have at least a grace period like Shanahan had? Seems like he deserves a chance. Why the threats?

Paladin
04-27-2009, 12:35 PM
This isn't rocket science to understand!

If you are a McD hater, yes it is.

Righteous indignation over the "losses" of Jay Quiter and Shanahan overrules any rational thought......

I fail to understand why the hiring of McD at 32 is so much worse than the hiring of Baggs the D coach. As I recall, he's a "young guy", too. I would say that it would not have mattered who Bowlen hired, some hereon were not going to like the new HC, period. And to think that he comes from the Patriots system is just too much for some to absorb.

Too bad, because I think this next season is going to be fun to watch.......

Blueflame
04-27-2009, 02:21 PM
Fair enough, but shouldn't McD have at least a grace period like Shanahan had? Seems like he deserves a chance. Why the threats?

He would have had a grace period if he had not arrogantly made the entire offseason about himself and "the Patriot way". Having forced out our best offensive player and then squandered a first rounder to move up in the second for a marginal value in a weak draft, topping it off by failing to address the team's primary needs, he has put the onus squarely on his own shoulders and a bullseye on his own chest.

If the team doesn't make the playoffs this year, the media and fans will be calling for his head and it won't be pretty at all.

Broncomutt
04-27-2009, 02:25 PM
If the team doesn't make the playoffs this year, the media and fans will be calling for his head and it won't be pretty at all.

Maybe you will. But Bronco fans won't.

OrangeRising
04-27-2009, 02:41 PM
Maybe you will. But Bronco fans won't.

I'm a Bronco fan. McDaniels made his gamble. It had better pay off NOW.

He mortgaged the future for this season, so naturally, we should expect results THIS SEASON.

Something wrong with that?

barryr
04-27-2009, 02:46 PM
I keep seeing this idiotic "mortgaged the future." By trading a future 1st round pick, one pick, that is mortgaging the future? Wow. With that line of thinking then apparently Shanahan mortgaged the future when he not only traded another pick, I believe a 2nd or 3rd, to move up to get Jarvis Moss, but wasted that 1st rounder on him since he is a bust. So more than one pick was wasted on Moss. But that's ok. At least he didn't trade up to get the best CB he thought in the draft. How disgraceful.

OrangeRising
04-27-2009, 02:53 PM
I keep seeing this idiotic "mortgaged the future." By trading a future 1st round pick, one pick, that is mortgaging the future? Wow. With that line of thinking then apparently Shanahan mortgaged the future when he not only traded another pick, I believe a 2nd or 3rd, to move up to get Jarvis Moss, but wasted that 1st rounder on him since he is a bust. So more than one pick was wasted on Moss. But that's ok. At least he didn't trade up to get the best CB he thought in the draft. How disgraceful.


I don't appreciate the 'idiotic' moniker, but insulting people seems standard fare around here so it is what it is.

I say mortgaged the future because my personal belief is that the Broncos will be perfectly awful this season and that #1 pick may be the franchise QB we don't have.

Since the QB is most often the face of the team, yes, it was a devastatingly distructive move.

The Quinn trade is so baffling, you wonder if they serve liquor in the 'war room', but I guess only the real 'experts' know what a really shrewd move that was.

Pony Boy
04-27-2009, 02:56 PM
I'm a Bronco fan. McDaniels made his gamble. It had better pay off NOW.

He mortgaged the future for this season, so naturally, we should expect results THIS SEASON.

Something wrong with that?

The only one McDaniels has to answer to is Bowlen, he fired Shanahan and I don't remember him asking the media or the fans their opinion before he did it . Bowlen knew he hired a green banana, he will give McDaniels more than one year.

Blueflame
04-27-2009, 02:56 PM
Maybe you will. But Bronco fans won't.

Ooooh... the "I'm a better fan than you" card. How utterly unimpressive.

It's flat-out unrealistic to think the media... or a significant portion of the fanbase... is going to give him a "grace period"if he doesn't immediately win after any of the moves I mentioned in my above post.

Broncomutt
04-27-2009, 03:11 PM
I'm a Bronco fan. McDaniels made his gamble. It had better pay off NOW.

He mortgaged the future for this season, so naturally, we should expect results THIS SEASON.

Something wrong with that?

Absolutely nothing wrong with expectations sir.

But why allow him an entire season? Why not just axe him if he doesn't win his first game? Seriously, if you're not going to give the guy enough runway to take off, why give him anything at all? Set expectations far too stringent so you can be assured of your victory dance around his wreckage.

You try to sound patient and willing to give him a shot, but you're hoping he plows face first into the dirt. Blue will be there to dance on his "Patriot" ashes.

Blue can call for his head after the first season, and you know what, I'll be here to make excuses. Injuries, Shanny, Cutler, officiating, the schedule, the salary cap, El Nino. And I know I won't be alone.

Lately Bowlen has demonstrated he's much more in line with my way of thinking than Blue's.

barryr
04-27-2009, 03:15 PM
I don't appreciate the 'idiotic' moniker, but insulting people seems standard fare around here so it is what it is.

I say mortgaged the future because my personal belief is that the Broncos will be perfectly awful this season and that #1 pick may be the franchise QB we don't have.

Since the QB is most often the face of the team, yes, it was a devastatingly distructive move.

The Quinn trade is so baffling, you wonder if they serve liquor in the 'war room', but I guess only the real 'experts' know what a really shrewd move that was.

So now QB's taken in the 1st round are all givens too? Why should teams make any trades since they may be missing out on the next HOF player in the following draft? Just keep what you have, don't try to get a player you really like since you MIGHT get some nameless player the following year. Congrats. That thinking helps teams stay bad.

Broncomutt
04-27-2009, 03:16 PM
Ooooh... the "I'm a better fan than you" card. How utterly unimpressive.


Actually, it's a more of a "don't tell me what I'll be thinking in a year, sweetheart" card. You don't know me. And you presume to speak for a "significant portion" of fans on this board who I know will be patient. Not forever, but more than 1 damn season.

Speak for yourself Blue, and not Bronco Nation. I may not have the pulse of Bronco fans, but I'm a damn site closer than you. And I know better than to speak for others.

Blueflame
04-27-2009, 03:22 PM
Actually, it's a more of a "don't tell me what I'll be thinking in a year, sweetheart" card. You don't know me. And you presume to speak for a "significant portion" of fans on this board who I know will be patient. Not forever, but more than 1 damn season.

Speak for yourself Blue, and not Bronco Nation. I may not have the pulse of Bronco fans, but I'm a damn site closer than you. And I know better than to speak for others.

If you truly believe that there will be no chorus of "fire McDaniels" if we don't win, then I'd say perhaps you need to visit the Orange Mane or pick up a Denver newspaper after any loss.

What makes you think I was trying to speak for "you"? Obviously you're among the percentage of Broncos fans who believe that it is not possible for McDaniels to make any mistakes whatsoever. And that's OK. However, I think it also should be OK for other posters to think McDaniels can and has messed up. Without being told they're bad fans or should go and root for the Chargers or Bears or other such BS. Trying to force everyone into a "groupthink" perspective sucks.

lex
04-27-2009, 03:25 PM
Absolutely nothing wrong with expectations sir.

But why allow him an entire season? Why not just axe him if he doesn't win his first game? Seriously, if you're not going to give the guy enough runway to take off, why give him anything at all? Set expectations far too stringent so you can be assured of your victory dance around his wreckage.

You try to sound patient and willing to give him a shot, but you're hoping he plows face first into the dirt. Blue will be there to dance on his "Patriot" ashes.

Blue can call for his head after the first season, and you know what, I'll be here to make excuses. Injuries, Shanny, Cutler, officiating, the schedule, the salary cap, El Nino. And I know I won't be alone.

Lately Bowlen has demonstrated he's much more in line with my way of thinking than Blue's.

That would be fine.

fdf
04-27-2009, 03:28 PM
Shanahan failed to adequately address the front 7 also and got fired for it but the argument McDaniels is making sounds remarkably like the one Mike used to make.

I think he got fired for a lot more than that--but it was certainly a big factor. Aside from the TE we took, none of the picks seemed like a big reach, which was typical of the Shanahan era (Foster, Moss, Crowder etc etc). We didn't draft anyone who has great potential as soon as he gets out of the wheelchair. There were no Travis McGee's. Normally, when Shanahan started talking the BPA, we were dealing with something like that.

We drafted a lot of DL during Shanahan's regime and the only ones that were a success were Pryce (big success), Heyward (moderate success), and Thomas (moderate success that might improve). Reagor may still be in the league. Powell is still on the team. That's it in how many years??

I was a big fan of drafting DL this year. Look at my posts. But we know that trying and failing to address DL in the draft is far worse than not addressing it because you give up the guys you could have drafted instead.

What this argument is really about is whether management evaluated guys like Brace properly. You think they didn't. Management thinks they did.

I'm willing to take Ayers this year and give management a few more years to turn things around. We were in pretty crappy shape when Shanahan was fired.

Broncomutt
04-27-2009, 03:36 PM
Obviously you're among the percentage of Broncos fans who believe that it is not possible for McDaniels to make any mistakes whatsoever. And that's OK.

There you go again. When your argument is weak, claim the other guy said, or believes, something ludicrous. It will make you sound wise, and your opponent the fool. Weak is weak, Blue.

There are a couple things that McDaniels has done that have left me wondering. But replacing Shanny and bucking Cutler weren't it.

I have total belief that some fans will want his head no matter what. Hell, look at Lex's post. Lex, Blue! Lex!! That's who is in your "significant portion". Lex!

And if your point was McDaniels will be criticized in the press if he loses some games....OMG, what a revelation!! I apologize then cause I guess we agree on something.

But something tells me you're waiting for the Patriot to get what's coming to him, regardless of his performance this year. That would be ME telling YOU what you think.

Blueflame
04-27-2009, 03:46 PM
There you go again. When your argument is weak, claim the other guy said, or believes, something ludicrous. It will make you sound wise, and your opponent the fool. Weak is weak, Blue.

There are a couple things that McDaniels has done that have left me wondering. But replacing Shanny and bucking Cutler weren't it.

I have total belief that some fans will want his head no matter what. Hell, look at Lex's post. Lex, Blue! Lex!! That's who is in your "significant portion". Lex!

And if your point was McDaniels will be criticized in the press if he loses some games....OMG, what a revelation!! I apologize then cause I guess we agree on something.

But something tells me you're waiting for the Patriot to get what's coming to him, regardless of his performance this year. That would be ME telling YOU what you think.

What I was saying (although I admit a bit of exaggeration) is that it's fine by me if others like McDaniels and every move he's made so far. However, it seems to not be OK with more than just a few of that group if others (like me) don't like him or even one thing that he's done. And the exchange instantly goes into the realm of personal attack by the McDaniels-defenders when any post is made that criticizes him in any way.

McDaniels will be criticized in the press and by more than just a few fans if the team fails to make the playoffs. Now, for me, I've already said repeatedly where "the bar" is set: at 8-8. I will view his first season as a failure if the team wins fewer than 8 games.

Popps
04-27-2009, 03:59 PM
That's why you have a good handle on these evaluations by the time FA opens up.

If he REALLY felt that the rookie DT crop was weak, make a run at Canti or Olshansky, or at least some back up depth beyond Fields. That didn't happen... the onus is now on him.

Well, Canty/Igor are DEs... and we did draft a DE in round one. We also signed two in free agency, and another potential guy as a street FA.

We added on street FA with upside at NT, and my guess is... we're probably not done there, yet.

We also have Powell and Thomas, who project to earn rotational roles on the 3-man line.

So, it's not as if we have no one. We've got options and need to see how they pan out, and continue to build on what we have.

elsid13
04-27-2009, 04:53 PM
The Pats took Brace because they're letting Wilfork walk next season. It's foresight.

It might be that or it might be they have Mike Wright playing the back-up NT, and that wasn't there best option. With Brace they got a good rotational rookie that can anchor the line,improves the run defense and keep Wilfork fresh in the 4th.

elsid13
04-27-2009, 04:55 PM
Well, Canty/Igor are DEs... and we did draft a DE in round one. We also signed two in free agency, and another potential guy as a street FA.

We added on street FA with upside at NT, and my guess is... we're probably not done there, yet.

We also have Powell and Thomas, who project to earn rotational roles on the 3-man line.

So, it's not as if we have no one. We've got options and need to see how they pan out, and continue to build on what we have.

Ayers was already told by Nolan and the LB coach that he would be moving to LB spot. He might come in with Doom on the nickle and dime package as DE, but he going to spend most of his time with hand off the ground.

BroncoBuff
04-27-2009, 04:57 PM
Ayers was already told by Nolan and the LB coach that he would be moving to LB spot. He might come in with Doom on the nickle and dime package as DE, but he going to spend most of his time with hand off the ground.

Thanks

broncogary
04-27-2009, 05:26 PM
Well, Canty/Igor are DEs... and we did draft a DE in round one. We also signed two in free agency, and another potential guy as a street FA.

We added on street FA with upside at NT, and my guess is... we're probably not done there, yet.

We also have Powell and Thomas, who project to earn rotational roles on the 3-man line.

So, it's not as if we have no one. We've got options and need to see how they pan out, and continue to build on what we have.

It's a terrible thing when Popps is the most reasonable poster on the thread! ROFL!

Popps
04-27-2009, 06:22 PM
Ayers was already told by Nolan and the LB coach that he would be moving to LB spot. He might come in with Doom on the nickle and dime package as DE, but he going to spend most of his time with hand off the ground.

****, that's great news. He looks like a big, bad, fast mother****er. I love it.

Again, it's all on paper, at this point... but he and Doom crashing down from the outside sounds like a pretty intriguing scenario.

rastaman
04-27-2009, 07:14 PM
Even Carmelo Anthony now believes that defense wins championships. He said so just the other night.

New Broncos coach Josh McDaniels does not. He believes the Broncos will win or lose as a 53-man team, not because of any particular unit.

This is why he ended up taking six offensive players and four defensive players in the NFL draft, even though, based on last season's production, defense was clearly the greater team need.

Equally glaring was the fact that three of the four new Broncos defenders play in the secondary, where McDaniels had already signed three starters in free agency.

Of the 10 players he drafted, only one plays in the defensive front seven, the weakest aspect of the 2008 Broncos other than special teams.

This will be one of the two most second-guessable McDaniels decisions during the draft. The other will be trading the Broncos' 2010 first-round pick for the 2009 second-round pick he used on cornerback Alphonso Smith.

If the Broncos struggle this year, this will turn out to be a high first-round pick, possibly high enough to grab a franchise quarterback prospect to replace Jay Cutler a year from now.

I asked McDaniels about both of these decisions at the conclusion of the draft Sunday night to get his explanations on the record.

Aware that he found more value in the players he picked than in the defensive linemen or linebackers available, I asked if, nevertheless, he passed up candidates for the front seven who are better than what he has now.

"Very rarely," he said. "I don't think this was a very deep draft in terms of players that would have fit our system in those areas. . . . I don't really think you want to draft somebody just because he plays a certain position unless you feel that player's got good value for your team and is going to come in and make you better.

"So there may have been a few times where there was a discussion, but we're not looking to draft players to cut them, I know that. And we're certainly not looking to draft players early to cut them.

"So if the player's not going to come in and be able to compete and beat out somebody on our roster, or at least have a good chance to try to do that and make our team, then we're going to definitely go in a different direction and we're going to draft somebody we feel can make a difference. And that's what we did."

On the trade of next year's first-round pick, I asked if McDaniels tried to get Seattle to accept whichever turns out to be the later of the two first-round picks Denver's or Chicago's that the Broncos controlled at the time.

"There was a little discussion about that, but we agreed that the pick could be ours," he said. "After talking it through with the other team, we felt like, that's OK, we'll roll the dice."

I asked if that decision reflected an expectation on McDaniels' part as to where those picks will be.

"No, it doesn't," he said. "I have no idea where Chicago's pick is going to be. And I don't have the foresight to know where our pick is going to be. I hope it's later, but you don't know.

"We just felt like, at that point, to haggle over something like that, it may not turn out in your favor, but it may. So after discussing it with them we said, 'All right, let's go ahead and do it.' "

McDaniels denied that financial considerations played any role in that trade.

It will be awhile before we know for sure whether these were sound decisions. My own guess is that the Bears will be better than the Broncos this season, and therefore that McDaniels should have held out to trade either the Bears' pick or the later of the two if he was going to make that trade at all.

Similarly, it looks to me like the failure to fortify the front seven through either free agency or the draft foreshadows another long year of softness against the run.

Either way, the outcome of these issues, not to mention the comparative performances of Cutler and Kyle Orton, will go a long way toward helping us figure out if the self-confident young coach knows what he's doing.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_12234582


If McD pulls this off......he will inherit the name "Miracle McDaniel's"!!!

Presently, McDaniel's is a 32 year old idiot. Had he been smart (which he isn't) he would have made sure he kept Cutler and Bates in the fold for at least two years before blowing up this Bronco Offense to implement his own scheme!!! Since Denver already had the 12th pick, McD could have still drafted Knoshown(sp), to bolster the running game and still had Cutler as his QB.

Knowhson and Hillis running back by committee with zone blocking would have been hard to stop. With Cutler, Marshall, Stokely, Royal, and Scheffler all having a year of playing together, this offense was set to explode.

McDaniel's could have used the remainder of Denver's picks to concentrate on Defense!!! The offense would have been set for years to come, and even in 2010, McD could have once again concentrated on Defense with FA and the draft!!! By 2011, the Broncos would have been a SB caliber team!

Point is, McDaniel's would have put a winning product and possible playoff bound team on the field in 2009 had he left Cutler and Bates in place, and with the addition of Knowhson-Hillis-----the firing of Shanny would have gone a lot smoother, and McDaniel's would not be in a FULL BLOWN 2 or 3 year rebuilding period. Had McDaniel's left the Shanahan offense in place, in 2 or 3 years the Broncos could actually be in the SB, instead of just completing a rebuilding period.

McDaniel's will get no breaks or patients from the fans at this point. That egotistical Prima Donna has got to win immediately or he's shark bait. Shanhan had two Super Bowl wins in his first 4 years as HC....McDaniels should be held to the same standards.....plain and simple.

rastaman
04-27-2009, 08:14 PM
Fair enough, but shouldn't McD have at least a grace period like Shanahan had? Seems like he deserves a chance. Why the threats?

Slick Azz McDaniel's will be judged on what he does the first 4 years......What did Shanny do in his first 4 years? That's right! he won 2 SB's consecutively.

Shanahan took over a 7-9 team...McD is taking over an 8-8 team. Shanny had a HOF Franchise QB on the down side of his career; and McD caused a Franchise QB at 25 years old to get traded!

In Shanny's first year he drafts TD, in McD's first year he drafts perhaps a TD equivalent in Knowshon. The only problem here, TD and Elway paired together and in 4 years they won two consec SB's. Don't see Orton and Knowshon pairing together to even sniffing the SB in four years...b/c Orton is no Cutler. Don't know what version of zone blocking scheme McD plans to unveil....but it will determine what type of season Knowhson has thats for sure.

Had McD kept Cutler.....he could have teamed up with Knowhson and perhaps in four years they too would have won a SB(s).

I expect Slick AZZ McDaniel's to have a 7-9 or 8-8 season in 2009! In 2010, I expect 10-13 wins, in 2011, I expect 12-14 wins and a Super Bowl win, in 2012, I expect another 12-14 wins and another Super Bowl!! After all, thats the bar set by Shanahan, and had McD's ego not have gotten into the way, he could have come close to or repeated what Shanny did in his first 4 years. Of course that was until he got rid of Bates and Cutler.

Screw McDaniel's! He created a mess......there won't be much patients coming his way unless he can create miracles over the next 2-4 years. McD, winning only 4-6 wins in 2009.....is unexceptable.

Odysseus
04-27-2009, 08:39 PM
If McD pulls this off......he will inherit the name "Miracle McDaniel's"!!!

Presently, McDaniel's is a 32 year old idiot. Had he been smart (which he isn't) he would have made sure he kept Cutler and Bates in the fold for at least two years before blowing up this Bronco Offense to implement his own scheme!!! Since Denver already had the 12th pick, McD could have still drafted Knoshown(sp), to bolster the running game and still had Cutler as his QB.

Knowhson and Hillis running back by committee with zone blocking would have been hard to stop. With Cutler, Marshall, Stokely, Royal, and Scheffler all having a year of playing together, this offense was set to explode.

McDaniel's could have used the remainder of Denver's picks to concentrate on Defense!!! The offense would have been set for years to come, and even in 2010, McD could have once again concentrated on Defense with FA and the draft!!! By 2011, the Broncos would have been a SB caliber team!

Point is, McDaniel's would have put a winning product and possible playoff bound team on the field in 2009 had he left Cutler and Bates in place, and with the addition of Knowhson-Hillis-----the firing of Shanny would have gone a lot smoother, and McDaniel's would not be in a FULL BLOWN 2 or 3 year rebuilding period. Had McDaniel's left the Shanahan offense in place, in 2 or 3 years the Broncos could actually be in the SB, instead of just completing a rebuilding period.

McDaniel's will get no breaks or patients from the fans at this point. That egotistical Prima Donna has got to win immediately or he's shark bait. Shanhan had two Super Bowl wins in his first 4 years as HC....McDaniels should be held to the same standards.....plain and simple.

McDaniels is looking for playmakers. He wants to win now. It is my hope that somewhere during the season that he gets rid of chain saw diplomacy and starts having the players making themselves known on the field instead of as sound bites in the press. I agree with you but let's see what happens.

If this team shows a spark of a defense or actually runs the ball I am willing to give this coach a pass. There really isn't anything to judge this coach on right now. I want to wait until a little deeper into the season.

Odysseus
04-27-2009, 08:40 PM
It's a terrible thing when Popps is the most reasonable poster on the thread! ROFL!

It is downright scary.

summerdenver
04-27-2009, 09:36 PM
It might be that or it might be they have Mike Wright playing the back-up NT, and that wasn't there best option.

Really?? The few games I have seen of NE, Wright plays 5 Tech in their 3-4.

summerdenver
04-27-2009, 09:47 PM
Now, for me, I've already said repeatedly where "the bar" is set: at 8-8. I will view his first season as a failure if the team wins fewer than 8 games.

I am with you on this blue. When you consider that we have spent 3 first rounders in the draft this year, Josh McDaniels seemed have freedom to reshape the roster to suit his philosophy, 19th difficult schedule and the fact that we got rid of the biggest dead weight of last year Slowik, its perfectly reasonable to expect us to atleast come close to last years record. Barring a catastophic attack of injuries, 7-9 wins seems like par expectation.

enjolras
04-27-2009, 11:02 PM
Stop acting like McDaniels traded away John Elway. I really don't care about the rest, time will judge our coach. However, this idea that Cutler was a 'franchise QB' is just stupid. It really is. Franchise QB's are the total package (talent, smarts, and competitive determination). Cutler is only one of those things at this point.

You'd think that having Elway here for 15 years would make it a lot easier for Broncos fans to recognize a franchise QB when they see one.

Archer81
04-27-2009, 11:17 PM
This season should be an interesting one. we do have a tough schedule, but thats based on last year's teams, not all of them will play the same way.


:Broncos:

Blueflame
04-27-2009, 11:30 PM
Stop acting like McDaniels traded away John Elway. I really don't care about the rest, time will judge our coach. However, this idea that Cutler was a 'franchise QB' is just stupid. It really is. Franchise QB's are the total package (talent, smarts, and competitive determination). Cutler is only one of those things at this point.

You'd think that having Elway here for 15 years would make it a lot easier for Broncos fans to recognize a franchise QB when they see one.

He did trade away the closest thing we've had to Elway since #7 retired.

Popps
04-27-2009, 11:36 PM
He did trade away the closest thing we've had to Elway since #7 retired.

Jay couldn't carry Elway's jock, and he quit on the team.

**** 'em. Let him rot in Chicago for eternity.

We've got a championship football team to build.

fdf
04-27-2009, 11:37 PM
He did trade away the closest thing we've had to Elway since #7 retired.

That was true when Bubby Brister was QB, when SOB was QB and when Jake Plummer was QB. "Closest" is a long way from "close."

summerdenver
04-27-2009, 11:38 PM
Stop acting like McDaniels traded away John Elway. I really don't care about the rest, time will judge our coach. However, this idea that Cutler was a 'franchise QB' is just stupid. It really is. Franchise QB's are the total package (talent, smarts, and competitive determination). Cutler is only one of those things at this point.

You'd think that having Elway here for 15 years would make it a lot easier for Broncos fans to recognize a franchise QB when they see one.

Well according to your logic, we have not lost any talent from last years team. We also spent lot of money in the FA in upgrading the secondary. We improved coaching. We have spent 3 first round picks in the draft and now have legitamate running threat. Last year we won 8 games and we have 19th ranked schedule this year. Taking all this into consideration, and barring catastrophic injuries, what is unreasonable to set expectations at 7-9 wins?

OK. Why don't you tell us then, what is a reasonable W-L record to judge our coach this year?

OABB
04-27-2009, 11:39 PM
It's a terrible thing when Popps is the most reasonable poster on the thread! ROFL!

tell me about it...he's been on fire these past few days.

I must be losing my mind, but I am agreeing with him post for post.

I think i may need to go away for awhile just so I don't become a douche.

summerdenver
04-27-2009, 11:44 PM
Jay couldn't carry Elway's jock, and he quit on the team.

**** 'em. Let him rot in Chicago for eternity.

We've got a championship football team to build.

OK Popps why don't tell us how should McDaniels be judged? I am assuming it has to be based w/l record. Is a 6 win season in 2009 reasonable target? How about 8 wins in 2010? Is that reasonable? If we don't reach either 6 (2009) or 8 (2010) wins are we allowed to cricize McDaniels then?

I personally will efrain from questioning any of his moves if we achieve even one of these goals, However, if we don't reach either of these goals can we criticize his moves then?

Blueflame
04-27-2009, 11:49 PM
Jay couldn't carry Elway's jock, and he quit on the team.

**** 'em. Let him rot in Chicago for eternity.

We've got a championship football team to build.

Jay was better than any QB currently on our roster.

fdf
04-27-2009, 11:51 PM
The hell with that. We're trading first round value for second round picks in a weak draft. That's not the move of a team trying to temper expectations. That's the move of a team saying "this is what we need to win THIS YEAR."

Or, of a team saying, "this is what we need to begin turning this franchise around, THIS YEAR." Getting a potentially top tier CB this year rather than next means he plays with Marshall, Royal, Clady, Harris, Kuper and Moreno for an additional year. It means he's starting a year earlier than whoever we would have drafted in his stead next year.

Coaches all have to say "we expect to win this year." The reality in Denver is that the only things that could get us to the playoffs this year is a bunch of breaks and that we play in by far the worst division in the NFL. That was true before the draft and it's true now. Nothing we did in the draft were likely to change that.

Both sides of the ball have been remade both in personnel and scheme. One side of the ball, plus special teams, were worse than horrible last year. I don't even expect the new units to start gelling until halfway thru the year.

My expectations were tempered before McDaniels hit town, when I attended three home losses last year, two of them to bad teams in which the Broncos flat gave up. I guess the good news is there's a lot of room for improvement :). The bad news is it isn't going to happen overnight. Sure hope I'm wrong on the last one.

DBroncos4life
04-27-2009, 11:52 PM
I wonder if the Panthers would have taken our first we gave up for Smith for Peppers.

fdf
04-27-2009, 11:53 PM
I think i may need to go away for awhile just so I don't become a douche.

LOL. One of the best comments I have heard since Shanahan left.

Blueflame
04-27-2009, 11:56 PM
That was true when Bubby Brister was QB, when SOB was QB and when Jake Plummer was QB. "Closest" is a long way from "close."

Cutler was better than Brister, Griese, or Plummer. Brister was a career journeyman who thought he could suck throughout the preseason because the starting job would be handed to him by default. He was wrong. Griese was OK and even sometimes impressive prior to his shoulder injury despite being a square peg in a round hole (an immobile QB behind a patchwork O-line that featured a converted TE at LT). Plummer was what he was... an inconsistent QB who could make a great play that made the crowd yell "YEAH!" and immediately follow it up with one that made them swear.

We'll probably never have another Elway. And that's OK because a lot of franchises never even get one.

summerdenver
04-28-2009, 12:02 AM
Or, of a team saying, "this is what we need to begin turning this franchise around, THIS YEAR." Getting a potentially top tier CB this year rather than next means he plays with Marshall, Royal, Clady, Harris, Kuper and Moreno for an additional year. It means he's starting a year earlier than whoever we would have drafted in his stead next year.

Coaches all have to say "we expect to win this year." The reality in Denver is that the only things that could get us to the playoffs this year is a bunch of breaks and that we play in by far the worst division in the NFL. That was true before the draft and it's true now. Nothing we did in the draft were likely to change that.

Both sides of the ball have been remade both in personnel and scheme. One side of the ball, plus special teams, were worse than horrible last year. I don't even expect the new units to start gelling until halfway thru the year.

My expectations were tempered before McDaniels hit town, when I attended three home losses last year, two of them to bad teams in which the Broncos flat gave up. I guess the good news is there's a lot of room for improvement :). The bad news is it isn't going to happen overnight. Sure hope I'm wrong on the last one.

I am assuming that you are saying with this post that McDaniels needs more time to install his system and he gets a pass this year. Fair enough so are we allowed to judge the success or failure of his tenure based on the results for 2010?. I am willing to wait but why don't you establish the paremeters for success then. Lets say if we don't win 8 games in 2010 we can probably conclude that we are not moving in the right direction. Is that fair?

watermock
04-28-2009, 12:08 AM
[QUOTEKnowhson and Hillis running back by committee with zone blocking would have been hard to stop. With Cutler, Marshall, Stokely, Royal, and Scheffler all having a year of playing together, this offense was set to explode. [/QUOTE].

fdf
04-28-2009, 12:14 AM
Cutler was better than Brister, Griese, or Plummer. . . .

I agree with you. I was probably too elliptical in my post. The point I was trying to make was that, despite Cutler's huge physical gifts, Elway was head and heels over all of them. There was Elway. That is one category. Then there were the other four. That is the other category. Cutler was without doubt the best of the other four. But the other four were all far from complete quarterbacks.

That may be an unfair comparison because only a few quarterbacks in history deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as Elway. Elway was one of the few quarterbacks that could actually carry a franchise on his shoulders without too much help from the rest of the guys. None of the other four (nor Kyle Orton nor Chris Sims) are that kind of quarterback.

fdf
04-28-2009, 12:39 AM
I am assuming that you are saying with this post that McDaniels needs more time to install his system and he gets a pass this year. Fair enough so are we allowed to judge the success or failure of his tenure based on the results for 2010?. I am willing to wait but why don't you establish the paremeters for success then. Lets say if we don't win 8 games in 2010 we can probably conclude that we are not moving in the right direction. Is that fair?

I think it's just silly to run around setting fixed goals. Of course I want to win a superbowl. But I don't pretend to be enough of an expert to know how much of our problem on D was scrubs and how much was terrible coaching, bad schemes, and constant changing of DC's. If it was mostly the later, then a quick turnaround might well happen. If the former, it's going to take time.

I'm taking it year by year. I've said this in other posts. The things I want to see next year are:

(1) Better redzone offense
(2) Better TOP
(3) A D that moves up to the top 20 on D from the bottom 2
(4) Special teams that move up to the top 20 on Special Teams from the bottom 1
(5) A team that doesn't give up.

I'm thinking the first half of next season is going to be pretty funky while the players are adjusting to new schemes, new coaches, and new players on both sides of the ball and while the coaches are figuring out what they have.

From a management viewpoint, it would be stupid to change coaches again without giving new management 3-4 year minimum to right a sinking ship. Maybe my assessment of the problems that existed on D and ST is too pessimistic. It may be a change in attitude will work wonders. I don't know. But in the meantime, I think the attempts to set hard goals on this board is just a bunch of folks being angry that the transition in management didn't go as smooth as silk when, in reality, changing coaches after a Shanahan was almost certain to cause a lot of disruption.

I mean, what are folks gonna do if he doesn't meet their hard goals? Say "there, he failed to meet my standards. I'm going to hold my breath and stomp my feet until . . . " Those folks appear to be doing just that already. So the goal setting seems to me to be nothing more than a way to justify continued foot stomping. Foot stomping seems to have replaced football.

We aren't in control here. We need to just chill and see what happens. And try to enjoy some games while we are doing it. I can't say that I much enjoyed the games I went to last year. But I don't much enjoy all the foot stomping up here either.

Blueflame
04-28-2009, 01:02 AM
I agree with you. I was probably too elliptical in my post. The point I was trying to make was that, despite Cutler's huge physical gifts, Elway was head and heels over all of them. There was Elway. That is one category. Then there were the other four. That is the other category. Cutler was without doubt the best of the other four. But the other four were all far from complete quarterbacks.

That may be an unfair comparison because only a few quarterbacks in history deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as Elway. Elway was one of the few quarterbacks that could actually carry a franchise on his shoulders without too much help from the rest of the guys. None of the other four (nor Kyle Orton nor Chris Sims) are that kind of quarterback.

Behind Joe Montana's O-lines, Elway would have set records. Behind Elway's O-lines, Joe Montana would have been lucky to make it through a single season uninjured***. Elway was the best ever.

Nonetheless, we are far inferior at QB going into 2009 than we were going into 2008.

*** during the timeframe that both players were starters. The caveat is that Shanahan did put a decent O-line in place for Elway once he became HC in 1995. But this was after Montana's retirement in 1994.

summerdenver
04-28-2009, 05:14 AM
I think it's just silly to run around setting fixed goals. Of course I want to win a superbowl. But I don't pretend to be enough of an expert to know how much of our problem on D was scrubs and how much was terrible coaching, bad schemes, and constant changing of DC's. If it was mostly the later, then a quick turnaround might well happen. If the former, it's going to take time.

I'm taking it year by year. I've said this in other posts. The things I want to see next year are:

(1) Better redzone offense
(2) Better TOP
(3) A D that moves up to the top 20 on D from the bottom 2
(4) Special teams that move up to the top 20 on Special Teams from the bottom 1
(5) A team that doesn't give up.

I'm thinking the first half of next season is going to be pretty funky while the players are adjusting to new schemes, new coaches, and new players on both sides of the ball and while the coaches are figuring out what they have.

From a management viewpoint, it would be stupid to change coaches again without giving new management 3-4 year minimum to right a sinking ship. Maybe my assessment of the problems that existed on D and ST is too pessimistic. It may be a change in attitude will work wonders. I don't know. But in the meantime, I think the attempts to set hard goals on this board is just a bunch of folks being angry that the transition in management didn't go as smooth as silk when, in reality, changing coaches after a Shanahan was almost certain to cause a lot of disruption.

I mean, what are folks gonna do if he doesn't meet their hard goals? Say "there, he failed to meet my standards. I'm going to hold my breath and stomp my feet until . . . " Those folks appear to be doing just that already. So the goal setting seems to me to be nothing more than a way to justify continued foot stomping. Foot stomping seems to have replaced football.

We aren't in control here. We need to just chill and see what happens. And try to enjoy some games while we are doing it. I can't say that I much enjoyed the games I went to last year. But I don't much enjoy all the foot stomping up here either.

Well every time some one writes anything critical of the current regime I am seeing people responding with "you are not a true fan if you ask that question" or "we so much better because of the changes". The natural follow up question should be how do you measure better?

The prevailing feeling here is McDaniels did a great favor to Broncos by taking this job while he was so much in demand and therefore you can not question anything he does. No one is givng me clear answer as to why we will be better.

Even you are talking in generalities we are better if we don't give up. Really what does it even mean how do you know who did not give up?. Top 10 D in what, overall yardage or points scored or DVOA ratings or passer rating? Are you going to pick up which ever rating we will be better and say we are improving even if we go 2-14? Basically no matter what, we are better than before.

Finally, Why should there not be standards and goals for McDaniels when this is how every coach other than BB is judged? How long does it take one to install his system? McDaniels had carte blanche on the roster and coaching staff this year. Other than Cassel he got every body he wanted. We spent 3 first round picks this year. We are not detriot lions - we won 8 games last year. Other than Jay we did not loose any one and added lot of talent. Is it still unreasonable to say we should match the last years win total in 2 years!!!!

TotallyScrewed
04-28-2009, 08:10 AM
When I read Krieger lately, I hear the theme song from "Jaws" in the background. Krieger was so hurt by the loss of Shanhan and his favored position as a house writer that he is out to get McD any which way he can. The man is a shark in the waters. I do not think he is being an "objective reporter". The Post writers are feeding into the hysteria in the fan base which feeds some of our lesser "contributors" on this board, those who have no clue and incessantly whine and criticize. Criticism is okay, but the degree of hateful rhetoric is disturbing. His column should be in the OPED pages.

It, in a word, sucks.

Where do you get that from this article? Nothing about Shanahan. Nothing that said McDaniels had screwed up. Just questioning and bringing up the possible problems. Or is no one allowed to doubt??

Why didn't McD specify which 1st round pick? If he didn't speicfy which pick why does it appear that as far as the rest of the world is concerned, it's the Broncos 1st round pick? The answer is easy.

And here's the thing...

Has McDaniels never heard of grooming a player? I mean, by his own words, he claims that if a player can't come in and compete for the starting spot, that player is not worth drafting...at least not on day 1. Aren't 90% (maybe 95%) of all linemen both offense and defense drafted while knowing that they will need time and experience to break into the starting rotation?

Am I missing something here??

fontaine
04-30-2009, 03:48 AM
The bottom line is McDaniels didn't like this draft for defensive tackles. Frankly I don't blame him. In his mind, rather than waste a pick on a DT he felt wouldn't make the roster, he took a player that he felt would have a better chance of being good.

Some felt he should have taken a DT "because OMG he HAS 2!!" regardless of whether we liked them or not. The thing is do you do that to appease the masses even if they suck? I would say no.

So really this comes down to talent evaluation. If any DT that we passed on and could have had emerges as a solid player in the 3-4, then it shows he has issues recognizing talent up front. In that sense he is on trial. If the players we got turn out to be studs and none of the tackles we past on work out, then he did the responsible thing and no one can complain - even if NT is a problem this year.

No it doesn't come down to just talent evaluation. Foresight and planning ahead is hugely important and I don't like that McDaniels admits he doesn't know which pick (Denver, Chicago) will be higher next year and didn't really care as he was ok with gambling on it.

I'm hoping that was just lip service because if he truely doesn't have a strong idea about that then he's doing a disservice to this team.

You have to hope for the best but prepare for the worst. If we do finish poorly enough to merit a top ten pick next year then losing out on this pick will sink this franchise further into a hole.

Be honest, most everyone expected Denver to finish with around 5-7 wins. Some DBs, a RB into a crowded back field and a rookie LB/DE who only really had one year of viable experience isn't going to change that.

I'm not going to judge the players now because it would be foolish to do so, but you can certainly evaluate the strategy going into this draft, and next year's considering we gave away our first for '10. And with possibly the worst 3-4 front seven in the league, I've seen nothing in McDaniel's strategy so far for this year, and giving away our first next year to remedy that. THIS is the real problem, rather than the individual talent selected.

I've criticized Shanahan for his awful record on fixing the front 7 on the same grounds.

BroncoInSkinland
04-30-2009, 05:49 AM
but you can certainly evaluate the strategy going into this draft, and next year's considering we gave away our first for '10. And with possibly the worst 3-4 front seven in the league, I've seen nothing in McDaniel's strategy so far for this year, and giving away our first next year to remedy that. THIS is the real problem, rather than the individual talent selected.

I've criticized Shanahan for his awful record on fixing the front 7 on the same grounds.

Excellent post, rep.

Shanahan/McDaniels, Cutler/Knowshon, Running Game/Passing game, Bailey/Dawkins/Smith, none of these things change the fact that until we get true talent in the front 7 with a stable scheme and good coaching our Deffense will be mediocre at best. At worst we could be looking back at the deffense of 2008 and wondering how we can get to that level of production.

fontaine
04-30-2009, 06:16 AM
Excellent post, rep.

Shanahan/McDaniels, Cutler/Knowshon, Running Game/Passing game, Bailey/Dawkins/Smith, none of these things change the fact that until we get true talent in the front 7 with a stable scheme and good coaching our Deffense will be mediocre at best. At worst we could be looking back at the deffense of 2008 and wondering how we can get to that level of production.

And that's the problem I have.

Sure getting the top RB, good DBs, is great and all but that's not why McDaniels was hired.

If Bowlen and everyone else wanted a HC to go tinkering with the offense, RBs, gamble on a bunch of DBs and ignore the front 7, then they should have stuck with Shanahan because that's pretty much what he did every season.

McDaniels was brought in here specifically and unquestionabley to keep the offense going and shore up the Defense given Shanahan's stubborn loyalty to Slowik.

When you combine FA and the Draft with the salary cap and number of picks we had, McDaniels has done nothing for this front 7 than what Mike has done in the past (a few depth average FAs, and a token front seven pick). Except I suscept Mike wouldn't have gotten raped by Seattle of all teams in a draft trade and wouldn't have gotten into a pissing match with our pea brained QB.

BroncoInSkinland
04-30-2009, 07:20 AM
On the bright side, I do think Nolan will have what tools are available to him ready to perform at as well as possible for their skill level. Also with Turner, Dennison, and our O-Line, Moreno should be able to eat the clock and keep the D off the field which will help. I imagine we will see some improvement on D, lord knows they would have to work at it to get any worse. I just wish the improvement was due to us getting the talent we need to actually be competitive in a year or two. Oh well Maybe Rulon will end up being the Rod Smith of D-lines.