PDA

View Full Version : "Poor decisions plague Broncos' coach"


Bronco Rob
04-30-2009, 07:57 AM
By Dan Parr (dparr@pfwmedia.com)
April 30, 2009


Fire front-office staff that nailed its top two draft picks in Ryan Clady and Eddie Royal last year and promote Brian Xanders to general manager.

Check. Josh McDaniels wants to pick his own guy to work with, which is understandable, albeit a bit arrogant.

Swing and miss on trading for old buddy Matt Cassel, angering Pro Bowl QB Jay Cutler.

Check. Again, arrogant, but it’s McDaniels’ right to explore.

Trade disgruntled, uncommunicative Cutler, the most rare and sought-after of commodities as a 25-year-old signalcaller in his prime, for two No. 1 draft picks and a much less talented replacement in Kyle Orton.

Check. Uh, this is getting ridiculous. Pressure is on. McDaniels better hit on these picks.

Rather than redeeming self on the big stage, make boneheaded decisions on Draft Day, most notably giving up No. 1 draft pick next year for second-rounder this year, and spend it on a 5-foot-8 7⁄8 cornerback who isn’t tall enough or fast enough to be a No. 1 corner.

Check.

This is McDaniels’ bizarre list of accomplishments thus far. While each decision brims with boldness, many of them have been damaging to the team. On paper, this looks like a worse club than the 8-8 one he inherited, thanks in large part to losing Cutler, and you have to wonder just what he was thinking at various points of the draft.


Denver, which needed help on defense in the worst way, particularly in the front seven, took Georgia RB Knowshon Moreno, the highest-rated back available, with its first pick at No. 12, passing on stud Texas DE-OLB Brian Orakpo and Ohio State CB-S Malcolm Jenkins. The Broncos could have used a defender more than a runner here, but Moreno is talented and will immediately become the team’s No. 1 ballcarrier.
McDaniels was sensible enough to take Tennessee OLB Robert Ayers with the 18th pick, acquired from Chicago, but he quickly dashed hopes that he had a solid plan in place by trading next year’s first-round pick, which could be in the top 10 the way he’s headed, to get the aforementioned diminutive Wake Forest CB Alphonso Smith in the second round.

No first-time head coach in history has reversed the perception of who he is so drastically without having coached a single game for his new team.

McDaniels was once known only as the brightest young offensive mind in the league, a guy who had learned under the tutelage of the most successful head coach of his generation in Bill Belichick.

He was young, getting the job at age 32, but it was hard to question his pedigree.

In less than four months as a head coach, however, questioning McDaniels has become as easy and as justifiable as possible. The luster has faded away and the curtain pulled back.

There’s a chance this draft class could turn out to be a great one and Orton will morph into a Cassel clone under McDaniels’ guidance. Early impressions have been wrong before.

McDaniels has to hope as hard as he can for that outcome. First-time head coaches usually get to enjoy a honeymoon period, but McDaniels’ ended in a hurry.



http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/NFL/AFC/AFC+West/Denver/Features/2009/parr2403.htm

Yet another douche heard from.....

Hulamau
04-30-2009, 08:08 AM
Thanks for more 'insights' from yet another superficial writer with very little idea what he's talking about. ...

Ah I see, he's from PFW .... 'nuff said :rofl:

RMT
04-30-2009, 08:11 AM
so, the writer's putting all of the Goodman's draft prowess on TWO picks? that should tell you enough about what "experts" they and shanahan were in the draft over the years - their track record speaks louder than the mere handful of good picks they've had.

barryr
04-30-2009, 08:14 AM
Has the writer checked Shanahan's draft record with defensive players?

baja
04-30-2009, 08:14 AM
It's great the national writers see us this why, when we win the division and make the playoffs they will be calling McDaniels the new Mastermind.

broncofan7
04-30-2009, 08:16 AM
This guy wrote nothing that hadn't already been written on this board over a month or so ago.....

Broncomutt
04-30-2009, 08:23 AM
Has the writer checked Shanahan's draft record with defensive players?

I think the writer was Shanahan.

bpc
04-30-2009, 08:26 AM
To be honest, McDaniels has made a lot of errors... but what did we expect from a 32 year old handed the reigns to a prestigious franchise?

I hope moving forward that he made the right decisions on draft day and all the people he picked are the right guys.

I hope that Bowlen is not low-balling the future of our team by potentially dealing away a top 10 pick because he doesn't have the scratch to pay them.

Go Broncos.

TheReverend
04-30-2009, 08:26 AM
While I agree with just about everything, this guy isn't qualified for his own thread anymore than anyone here.

supermanhr9
04-30-2009, 09:23 AM
this guys a fool.

SonOfLe-loLang
04-30-2009, 09:29 AM
How do we know McDaniels made errors? Where is the proof of the error? The only empirical evidence of error is a win-loss record and, last time i checked, we haven't played a game yet.

If in 3 years he has a losing record, then yes, he made errors. If in 3 years we're in the super bowl? Well, then he knew exactly what he was doing.

dbfan21
04-30-2009, 09:33 AM
Write a completely useless and biased article which prematurely judges the level of success a coach's decisions have had before he is even done assembling the team and gets them onto the field to play a single game.


Check.


I, for one, am going to reserve comment on McD's offseason activity until the fourth or fifth game of the season. Until then, it waaaaay too early to tell what type of job he's done.

telluride
04-30-2009, 09:35 AM
what did we expect from a 32 year old handed the reigns to a prestigious franchise?

I'm kinda amazed at this myth. Yes, we were good in the late 1990s. But for almost a decade we've been a very middling team. For the past three seasons we've been a .500 team, with a historically bad defense, an underperforming offense, and a tendency to get embarrassed in big games and on national TV. That's not a "prestigious franchise."

So, McDaniels is no Shanny? Well, thank God for that. Because Shanny long ago ceased to be the Shanny of the late 90s.

BroncoBuff
04-30-2009, 09:36 AM
I agree with every word in that PFW article, but I still say ...

GO BRONCOS! :gobroncos :Broncos: :bronxrox:

Beantown Bronco
04-30-2009, 09:38 AM
How do we know McDaniels made errors? Where is the proof of the error? The only empirical evidence of error is a win-loss record and, last time i checked, we haven't played a game yet.

If in 3 years he has a losing record, then yes, he made errors. If in 3 years we're in the super bowl? Well, then he knew exactly what he was doing.

I take a final exam. I walk out at the end and make my answers public. Several other students and teaching assistants pull me aside to let me know they think several of my answers were wrong. But you're essentially saying that we have to assume I got an A+ on the test until a month later when I actually get the grade in the mail from the professor?

BroncoBuff
04-30-2009, 09:41 AM
McDaniels has made a lot of errors... but what did we expect from a 32 year old handed the reigns to a prestigious franchise?

Exactly. I was front and center, posting exactly that even before the Matt Cassel botched trade talks. We should have learned from Shanahan's latter-day excesses that too much power is a bad thing.

I'm 100% behind Josh as head coach, I know our offense will rock.

But giving him near Shanahan-level franchise power has been near-catastrophic.

Beantown Bronco
04-30-2009, 09:42 AM
Write a completely useless and biased article which prematurely judges the level of success a coach's decisions have had before he is even done assembling the team and gets them onto the field to play a single game.


Check.


I, for one, am going to reserve comment on McD's offseason activity until the fourth or fifth game of the season. Until then, it waaaaay too early to tell what type of job he's done.

This is the argument several people are making here. Do you see the problem with this line of thinking? It's lumping of grades.

You do realize that you can grade him on his offseason moves and then give him a completely different grade for his "in season" coaching, don't you?

Think about it. We did it all the time with Shanny. A+ for his gameplanning and getting wins with less talent. F for his GM role because he was responsible for getting himself that lesser talent.

See how it works?

Say McDaniels gets to the playoffs next year. That doesn't necessarily mean the moves he's made thus far are the reason why. He could be completely whiffing today, but win during the season because his gameplans are good enough to overcome the lack of talent he provided himself with.

Hercules Rockefeller
04-30-2009, 09:46 AM
I'm still amazed at how many people "know" what went on within the franchise during this whole thing. They "know" that Xanders and Bowlen had no input with regards to Jay and this is 100% on Josh. They "know" that Josh has the same amount of power as Mike, the only difference is that Mike had the title while Josh does not. The Internetz is awesome.

Drek
04-30-2009, 10:13 AM
I'm still amazed at how many people "know" what went on within the franchise during this whole thing. They "know" that Xanders and Bowlen had no input with regards to Jay and this is 100% on Josh. They "know" that Josh has the same amount of power as Mike, the only difference is that Mike had the title while Josh does not. The Internetz is awesome.

I'm personally of the opinion that Josh was willing to stick it out and make Cutler play, assuming that time would heal all wounds. When Cutler effectively snubbed Bowlen the real boss decided enough was enough.

He fired Mike Shanahan because he was tired of just paying the bills for what amounted to someone else's franchise. Cutler basically pushed the exact same button, challenging Bowlen's authority within his own team. No way that was going to fly.

SonOfLe-loLang
04-30-2009, 10:15 AM
I take a final exam. I walk out at the end and make my answers public. Several other students and teaching assistants pull me aside to let me know they think several of my answers were wrong. But you're essentially saying that we have to assume I got an A+ on the test until a month later when I actually get the grade in the mail from the professor?

Thats a bad analogy because answers on a test are black and white and anything the broncos have done now exist in the grey until the black and white answers (wins/losses) can become apparent. I dont assume McDaniels gets an A+ or an F. Do you know for a fact that his moves won't work? If you do, I'd love to borrow your crystal ball, i have some other questions.

Also, there are no "experts" when it comes to football punditry. Surprises happen every year that are completely unpredictable.

Horrible analogy, horrible.

dbfan21
04-30-2009, 10:16 AM
This is the argument several people are making here. Do you see the problem with this line of thinking? It's lumping of grades.

You do realize that you can grade him on his offseason moves and then give him a completely different grade for his "in season" coaching, don't you?

Think about it. We did it all the time with Shanny. A+ for his gameplanning and getting wins with less talent. F for his GM role because he was responsible for getting himself that lesser talent.

See how it works?

Say McDaniels gets to the playoffs next year. That doesn't necessarily mean the moves he's made thus far are the reason why. He could be completely whiffing today, but win during the season because his gameplans are good enough to overcome the lack of talent he provided himself with.

I see what you're saying. The problem I have with this is that people are judging McD based on what THEY think he should be doing versus judging McD based on what HIS actual plans are. We are all clueless to the plan the Broncos FO has. He may not be whiffing at all. For all we know, Josh may be hitting on 90-95% of his draft and FA targets, which would result in an "A" grade.

I like reading the articles because it gets me pumped for the upcoming season. Plus, it's better reading than some of the baseball/b-ball/hockey articles that are circulating right now. To a degree, I like the negative articles because it will motivate the team to prove the naysayers wrong.

Maybe the article just irritated me a bit because the writer is not very credible/noteable. Thanks for explaning your viewpoint, Beantown.

Go Broncos!!

BroncoBuff
04-30-2009, 10:23 AM
This is the argument several people are making here. Do you see the problem with this line of thinking? It's lumping of grades.

You do realize that you can grade him on his offseason moves and then give him a completely different grade for his "in season" coaching, don't you?

Think about it. We did it all the time with Shanny. A+ for his gameplanning and getting wins with less talent. F for his GM role because he was responsible for getting himself that lesser talent.

See how it works?

Say McDaniels gets to the playoffs next year. That doesn't necessarily mean the moves he's made thus far are the reason why. He could be completely whiffing today, but win during the season because his gameplans are good enough to overcome the lack of talent he provided himself with.
What an excellent post, my fellow BB ... rep.

Personally, I LOVE "Coach Josh," can't wait to see that offense.

But "GM Josh" is a mistake that might take years to overcome.


The sad part is Bowlen knew about the problems that come with concentrating too much power in one guy ... and yet he fell right back into that trap. And we lost 2 of the 3 most effective guys in the organization because of it. Pat firing Goodman was not just "throwing the baby out with the bathwater," it was lapsing back into old behavior ... the comfort level of having just one guy to deal with.

eddie mac
04-30-2009, 10:26 AM
You know why we get continuous articles like this???

It's because no-one outside those 4 people (Bowlen, Xanders, McDaniels and Ellis) have a ****ing clue what goes on anymore within the Broncos Organisation and every facet of the media ****ing hate being in the dark about one of the best followed teams worldwide.

BroncoBuff
04-30-2009, 10:31 AM
no-one outside those 4 people (Bowlen, Xanders, McDaniels and Ellis) have a ****ing clue what goes on anymore within the Broncos Organisation and every facet of the media ****ing hate being in the dark about one of the best followed teams worldwide.
We DO know who's in charge: Bears' GM Jerry Angelo made it very clear who's the boss in Denver. He did an long post-mortem interview about the Cutler trade, wherein he mentioned Josh's name over and over. Never mentioned his GM counterpart Xanders ... the protocol would have been to acknowledge his peer, but he did not. THAT'S ALL WE NEED TO KNOW about who's in charge in Denver.

No more denial, please: Brian Xanders = John Beake/Ted Sundquist.

That much we know.

footstepsfrom#27
04-30-2009, 10:32 AM
No first-time head coach in history has reversed the perception of who he is so drastically without having coached a single game for his new team.
This is a true statement no matter how you view this situation. The only guy that comes to memory as being this ultra-transformative straight out of the gate was Jimmy Johnson. However Johnson took over a team with very little talent and he had already coached a team to an NCAA title whereas this guy's never even coached a high school team. The length of time he's been in the game is serious concern. Couple that with the record of Belicheat's assistants and you've got a lot working against him.

BroncoBuff
04-30-2009, 10:35 AM
I'm still amazed at how many people "know" what went on within the franchise during this whole thing. They "know" that Xanders and Bowlen had no input with regards to Jay and this is 100% on Josh. They "know" that Josh has the same amount of power as Mike, the only difference is that Mike had the title while Josh does not. The Internetz is awesome.

He doesn't have the scope of power that Mike had obviously. But Herc, Bears' Jerry Angelo made things 100% clear about Josh and Brian. He did an extensive Cutler trade post mortem interview, wherein he mentioned Josh's name over and over ... never mentioned Xanders. And Xanders is his GM counterpart, so the protocol would have been to acknowledge his peer. But he did not. THAT"S ALL WE NEED TO KNOW.

Plus, Bowlen's "Letter to the Fans" spoke volumes ... he wrote again and again about Josh - but mentioned Xanders just one, and then merely as a tack-on to Josh. And the entire Cutler controversy was discussed in Josh terms of course, we all know that, not in Xanders terms.

Don't be in denial about who is in charge.

It's Pat's decision who runs the team, and he's made his choice. The best way for Josh supporters to defend Josh is not to deny he has the power he obviously has, the best way to defend him is on the substance

BroncoBuff
04-30-2009, 10:45 AM
I don't mind the Josh-defenders defending Josh, maybe history and events will prove them correct. I hope they do, I hope we win 14 and the Super Bowl this year. But the Josh sopprters should accept the reality here:

Brian Xanders = John Beake
Brian Xanders = Ted Sundquist

Josh is all in charge of this team ... maybe that's just Bowlen's comfort level, but it appears pretty certain that this is the case. When the Josh-defenders try to deny this reality, they're merely exposing the weakness of their case.

SonOfLe-loLang
04-30-2009, 10:53 AM
I don't mind the Josh-defenders defending Josh, maybe history and events will prove them correct. I hope they do, I hope we win 14 and the Super Bowl this year. But the Josh sopprters should accept the reality here:

Brian Xanders = John Beake
Brian Xanders = Ted Sundquist

Josh is all in charge of this team ... maybe that's just Bowlen's comfort level, but it appears pretty certain that this is the case. When the Josh-defenders try to deny this reality, they're merely exposing the weakness of their case.

I dont get why this is a bad thing.

cmhargrove
04-30-2009, 11:15 AM
Any article that doesn't mention Slowik isn't even a credible witness to our rebuilding team. The guy that wrote this article must read other people's opinions to form his opinions.

Just switching D-coordinators and getting rid of dead weight on defense made us a better team.

Now, our offense should score more points.

Some sports writers will always be hacks...

outdoor_miner
04-30-2009, 11:28 AM
Any article that doesn't mention Slowik isn't even a credible witness to our rebuilding team. The guy that wrote this article must read other people's opinions to form his opinions.

Just switching D-coordinators and getting rid of dead weight on defense made us a better team.

Now, our offense should score more points.

Some sports writers will always be hacks...

This is what is driving me crazy nowadays. I don't understand where people think Nolan is in the whole process. I mean, if Nolan didn't think he could get by with the D-Line talent we have, he would be screaming "Get me a nose tackle, you a$$hat!!!"

Nolan is not some "yes" man that was Josh's buddy from New England. This is a well-respected, established Defensive Coordinator that almost certainly could have gotten a job with many different teams. He chose to come to Denver, and must be involved in evaluating the defensive talent that we currently have, and he must have been involved in evaluating the talent available in FA and the Draft. The clear focus on improving the secondary is a testament as to where Nolan believes the biggest problem is/was on our D last year, and his lack of action on the D-Line indicates that he believes the D-Line is at least workable.

R8R H8R
04-30-2009, 11:45 AM
Any article that doesn't mention Slowik isn't even a credible witness to our rebuilding team. The guy that wrote this article must read other people's opinions to form his opinions.

Just switching D-coordinators and getting rid of dead weight on defense made us a better team.

Now, our offense should score more points.

Some sports writers will always be hacks...

Good point, and something that I have been coming to terms with after analyzing our draft. But it just isn't him, I don't remember any talking-head this past week talking about how badly coached the D was, and a change there should help the team. I believe the combo of Nolan, scheme change, and both FA's and draft picks will improve the defense enough to be at least average this year. That alone should be enough to win an extra game or two.

Will we be dominate? No, not this year; not with this line. But it really isn't realistic to go from last to dominate in one year.

As long as we get better in the red zone offensively, and Moreno will immediately help us there, and continue to improve defensively- even just a little, we will be all right, imo.

Beantown Bronco
04-30-2009, 11:53 AM
Thats a bad analogy because answers on a test are black and white and anything the broncos have done now exist in the grey until the black and white answers (wins/losses) can become apparent.

Horrible analogy, horrible.

You've never taken an essay test where subjective grading comes into play. Great school system.

manchambo
04-30-2009, 12:04 PM
You know why we get continuous articles like this???

It's because no-one outside those 4 people (Bowlen, Xanders, McDaniels and Ellis) have a ****ing clue what goes on anymore within the Broncos Organisation and every facet of the media ****ing hate being in the dark about one of the best followed teams worldwide.

I really wish that was the reason.

The actual reason is that the decisions and actions are so obviously inexplicable and seemingly terrible to so many independent and unbiased observers.

BroncoBuff
04-30-2009, 01:01 PM
I dont get why this is a bad thing.

Really? Lemme make clear what I'm talking about:

Sequenced in chronological order of events:

1. Josh put in charge.
2. Jim Goodman - the best drafting exec in the league - gone.
3. Jay Cutler - the franchise quarterback - gone.


This kid has written alotta big checks.

We'll see whether they're honored or they bounce.

gyldenlove
04-30-2009, 01:29 PM
I dont get why this is a bad thing.

Shanahan HC/GM fired, brilliant coach, subpar front office guy, fired because Bowlen wanted to seperate the powers. Overspend on players who didn't perform.

Mcdaniels hired HC/GM, presumably brilliant coach, apparently subpar front office guy. Overspend on guys who may not even make the team.

Odysseus
04-30-2009, 02:09 PM
When has pro****meweakly ever written anything good about the Broncos?

Hercules Rockefeller
04-30-2009, 02:16 PM
2. Jim Goodman - the best drafting exec in the league - gone.


Yeah, no. The '07 draft calls and say hi. Spin that draft anyway you want, but Jim Goodman isn't anywhere near the best drafting exec in the league. 3 drafts, one of which has produced 1 starter doesn't even get someone in the conversation for best drafting exec in the league.

epicSocialism4tw
04-30-2009, 02:22 PM
I really wish that was the reason.

The actual reason is that the decisions and actions are so obviously inexplicable and seemingly terrible to so many independent and unbiased observers.

This is exactly right.

"Head-scratcher" doesnt describe the types of decisions that he has made so far. They are more of the types of decisions that go against prior knowledge and standards. So McD is one of two things: 1) a visionary and a trend-setter, or 2) an uneducated fool. We wont know which one until the whole thing plays out, but fans have every right to question why he would go rogue so quickly.

Nobody makes those types of odd decisions without being totally convinced of their ultimate benefit.

Rohirrim
04-30-2009, 02:29 PM
Really? Lemme make clear what I'm talking about:

Sequenced in chronological order of events:

1. Josh put in charge. (Unknown whether this is good or bad right now - or true)
2. Jim Goodman - the best drafting exec in the league - gone. (Better than Newsome? Polian? Pioli? I don't think so.)
3. Jay Cutler - the franchise quarterback - gone. (Or a guy with possible mental issues and medical issues traded at probably the last moment this team could get value for him - we'll see)

This kid has written alotta big checks.

We'll see whether they're honored or they bounce.

He's definitely made some bold moves. I'm frankly beginning to wonder if he wasn't, once again, acting under orders from Bowlen when he dumped next year's #1 pick for Smith. We'll probably never know the answer to that one either.

footstepsfrom#27
04-30-2009, 02:35 PM
This is exactly right.

"Head-scratcher" doesnt describe the types of decisions that he has made so far. They are more of the types of decisions that go against prior knowledge and standards. So McD is one of two things: 1) a visionary and a trend-setter, or 2) an uneducated fool. We wont know which one until the whole thing plays out, but fans have every right to question why he would go rogue so quickly.

Nobody makes those types of odd decisions without being totally convinced of their ultimate benefit.
McHoodie is just as stuborn and arrogant if not more so than Shanahan based on what we've seen so far, yet this trait seems like a major reason Bowlen also fired Mike. Apparently Pat is somehow drawn to this kind of personality type. He probably endured Mike because he won two Lombardi's in his first four years.

If history repeats then Opie's probably going to be here a while...if not?

vancejohnson82
04-30-2009, 02:39 PM
McHoodie is just as stuborn and arrogant if not more so than Shanahan based on what we've seen so far, yet this trait seems like a major reason Bowlen also fired Mike. Apparently Pat is somehow drawn to this kind of personality type. He probably endured Mike because he won two Lombardi's in his first four years.

If history repeats then Opie's probably going to be here a while...if not?

wow....McHoodie and Opie....very clever contribution to the board...and a good job of summarizing the psychology of Pat Bowlen....rep

epicSocialism4tw
04-30-2009, 02:40 PM
McHoodie is just as stuborn and arrogant if not more so than Shanahan based on what we've seen so far, yet this trait seems like a major reason Bowlen also fired Mike. Apparently Pat is somehow drawn to this kind of personality type. He probably endured Mike because he won two Lombardi's in his first four years.

If history repeats then Opie's probably going to be here a while...if not?

Bowlen wont react strongly until it effects either his bottom line or begins to effect the stature of the franchise.

There's no doubt in my mind that Bowlen has second-guessed his decision about hiring McD. Remember, he did it pretty quickly and under the pressure of McD's hire elsewhere. I dont know where he draws the line as far as his firing would go. Bowlen seems to have committed to McD and his philosophy long term.

I have my suspicions as to why this is the case, and personally I think that its because Bowlen is ultimately trying to reduce the cost of running the team. McD's system is one of drones. All braves no chief.

BroncoBuff
04-30-2009, 03:44 PM
Yeah, no. The '07 draft calls and say hi. Spin that draft anyway you want, but Jim Goodman isn't anywhere near the best drafting exec in the league.

All 7 players drafted in '06 are still in the league (albeit Eslinger is on a banana peel).

5 of the 7 are starters (Scheffler's started 60% of games the last two years).

That is amazing, simply amazing.

Spin 2007 any way you want, but 2007 netted two solid, decade-plus long starters in just 4 picks. And they were the lower picks - picks that Goodman undoubtedly had more influence in making. Check your draft history, team by team ... 50% of draft picks becoming long-term starters is WAY above average ... and that was his WORST year!


These drafts, one of which has produced 1 starter doesn't even get someone in the conversation for best drafting exec in the league.You could not be more wrong. Everything you said there.

First, you're factually wrong about "one starter." I'm not even sure which draft you're referring to ... not the 2007 draft, Ryan Harris and Marcus Thomas both started all 16 games this year.

If you're referring to the 2008 draft, wrong again. Ryan Clady and Eddie Royal are already stars, and Peyton Hillis, Josh Barrett, Wesley Woodyard and Spencer Larsen have all started (in fact, Larsen started on BOTH units!)

And the 2006 draft ... that is one for the ages.

BroncoBuff
04-30-2009, 03:56 PM
He's definitely made some bold moves. I'm frankly beginning to wonder if he wasn't, once again, acting under orders from Bowlen when he dumped next year's #1 pick for Smith. We'll probably never know the answer to that one either.

2006, 2007 and 2008 ... those drafts rank as good or better than ANYBODY.

I believe 2006 will go down in history ... not the Steelers' 1971 class, but a GREAT class ... like I said, ALL SEVEN players drafted are still in the league three years later. Amazing.

5 of the 7 are starters, and Domenik Hixon looks like he'll start this year. Plus, he was a big contributor to a Super Bowl winning run. Amazing.

Cutler
Scheffler
Dumervil
Marshall
Kuper
Hixon
Eslinger

... a draft for the ages.

ZONA
04-30-2009, 04:12 PM
* Many teams have confirmed they were the ones to initiate talks for Cutler, not McDaniels.

Check

* Cutler wanted out after Shanny & Bates were released, no matter how you spin it, that is the truth.

Check

* "passing on stud Texas DE-OLB Brian Orakpo and Ohio State CB-S Malcolm Jenkins". Both haven't done jack in the NFL yet so calling them studs is premature.

Check

* "On paper, this looks like a worse club than the 8-8 one he inherited". That's why they play the games. No game has ever been won on "paper".

Check



What a lame article.

Hercules Rockefeller
04-30-2009, 04:15 PM
All 7 players drafted in '06 are still in the league (albeit Eslinger is on a banana peel).

5 of the 7 are starters (Scheffler's started 60% of games the last two years).

That is amazing, simply amazing.

Spin 2007 any way you want, but 2007 netted two solid, decade-plus long starters in just 4 picks. And they were the lower picks - picks that Goodman undoubtedly had more influence in making. Check your draft history, team by team ... 50% of draft picks becoming long-term starters is WAY above average ... and that was his WORST year!


You could not be more wrong. Everything you said there.

First, you're factually wrong about "one starter." I'm not even sure which draft you're referring to ... not the 2007 draft, Ryan Harris and Marcus Thomas both started all 16 games this year.

If you're referring to the 2008 draft, wrong again. Ryan Clady and Eddie Royal are already stars, and Peyton Hillis, Josh Barrett, Wesley Woodyard and Spencer Larsen have all started (in fact, Larsen started on BOTH units!)

And the 2006 draft ... that is one for the ages.

So you're down to one great draft, 1 draft that produced 2 starters and not 1, and 1 that just finished their rookie season. Again, that's 3 drafts, he's no where close to being the greatest draft exec in the leauge for that. Everyone loved the '02 and '04 drafts for the most part with all those rookie contributors, those fell apart in the subsequent seasons. Not saying that will happen with '08, but you cannot judge that draft class after a single season.

You also know very little of what happened in that draft room. Goodman could have recommended every single one of those players, or he could have recommended a different person at every spot only to be overruled by Shanahan. Just like your belief that Josh has Shanahan-like powers, you're reaching and stretching.

Hamrob
04-30-2009, 05:43 PM
It's great the national writers see us this why, when we win the division and make the playoffs they will be calling McDaniels the new Mastermind.That's the spirit!

Kaylore
04-30-2009, 07:13 PM
Mcdaniels hired HC/GM, presumably brilliant coach, apparently subpar front office guy.

Oh this is apparent now?

BroncoBuff
04-30-2009, 08:54 PM
Oh this is apparent now?

VERY apparent. He might mature into a good one, but thusfar he's learning on the job, and has made some doozy mistakes.

That's not just Jay-lovers saying that, that's the consensus of the media - that Josh has made rookie mistakes.

BroncoBuff
04-30-2009, 08:57 PM
So you're down to one great draft.
Oh, just ONE great draft? ROFL!

Yeah, the greatest draft in the franchise's 50 year history!

BroncoBuff
04-30-2009, 09:03 PM
So you're down to one great draft, 1 draft that produced 2 starters and not 1, and 1 that just finished their rookie season. Again, that's 3 drafts, he's no where close to being the greatest draft exec in the leauge for that.
I say he was the best in the league, and I stand by that statement.

And because you say Goodman was "nowhere near" the best, you should be able to list, say, 8 or 10 or more teams that drafted better. So then, it's your turn: Point out even ONE team that drafted better over that period, and show your work.

I won't hold my breath.

And don't just say, "I don't have time to research it." If you don't know what you're talking about specifically, you shouldn't be arguing the point in factual terms.



Not saying that will happen with '08, but you cannot judge that draft class after a single season.
You did - your post judged it after one year.

It's called "damning with faint praise."



You know very little of what happened in that draft room.
Please.

None of us know what went on in there Herc, we're ALL just guessing.

Weakest.argument.ever.

That's the argument of somebody who's already lost the argument.



Goodman could have recommended every single one of those players, or he could have recommended a different person at every spot only to be overruled by Shanahan.
You think so, eh? Well I got some homework for you: Go to this link and look at the eleven drafts Shanahan presided over before Goodman was put in charge of personnel. I'll wait here for you to come back: http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?teamId=1400&type=team


Now ... have you read them? So you still think Shanahan was making all these picks 06-08? That he suddenly became a drafting genius a la "Flowers for Algernon"?

I thought so.

So there.

Besides, Mike himself said "all the credit" for those genius drafts goes to Goodman. Somebody here dug up that quote, and if MIKE gave Goodman the credit, case closed.



Just like your belief that Josh has Shanahan-like powers, you're reaching and stretching.
No, YOU refuse to listen to Jerry Angelo and Pat Bowlen:

In his explanation of the trade and of Cutler-gate in general - made in his "Letter to the Fans" - Pat Bowlen wrote: "Josh was instructed to do whatever was necessary to make us a better team." You're a lawyer, Herc, you know what that sentence means. In the context of explaining Cutler-gate, that sentence means Josh is the guy in charge of trades and personnel.

Sheesh, I have nothing wrong with Josh-supporters, but reality is reality. And Jerry Angelo is not lying to the Chicago media about whom he dealt with in the wake of the biggest trade he ever made. And Pat Bowlen is not "accidentally" forgetting to mention the general manager when explaining Cutler-gate. Neither one is gonna do that, there is no incentive for them to to lie.


Josh is all in charge here. Deal with it.

Odysseus
05-01-2009, 05:42 AM
I was hoping this would turn into another fans gone wild thread...with pictures.

TheReverend
05-01-2009, 06:45 AM
Now ... have you read them? So you still think Shanahan was making all these picks 06-08? That he suddenly became a drafting genius a la "Flowers for Algernon"?

A "Flowers for Algernon" reference?!?! Score for Buff! I had to dig through the rolodex for that one. Janitor becomes lead scientist thanks to some experiment, then it wears off and he becomes semi-retarded again, right? Or something along those lines...

elsid13
05-01-2009, 06:59 AM
A "Flowers for Algernon" reference?!?! Score for Buff! I had to dig through the rolodex for that one. Janitor becomes lead scientist thanks to some experiment, then it wears off and he becomes semi-retarded again, right? Or something along those lines...

Hit it on the head, janitor 8')

colonelbeef
05-01-2009, 08:34 AM
So you're down to one great draft, 1 draft that produced 2 starters and not 1, and 1 that just finished their rookie season. Again, that's 3 drafts, he's no where close to being the greatest draft exec in the leauge for that. Everyone loved the '02 and '04 drafts for the most part with all those rookie contributors, those fell apart in the subsequent seasons. Not saying that will happen with '08, but you cannot judge that draft class after a single season.

You also know very little of what happened in that draft room. Goodman could have recommended every single one of those players, or he could have recommended a different person at every spot only to be overruled by Shanahan. Just like your belief that Josh has Shanahan-like powers, you're reaching and stretching.

Dude, you completely lost this argument, BroncoBuff has clearly explained why you are totally wrong. Nobody in the league had 3 better drafts put together between 2006-2008 than the Goodman/Shanahan team, and there is no arguing this.

Rohirrim
05-01-2009, 08:55 AM
I decided to do a little research and found that Buff actually has a pretty good point about Goodman if you take a look at it (Buff - Your head is already big enough. Don't take this the wrong way. ;D)

First, we have to pinpoint the “Goodman era.” Judging by the man’s own words, it last three years: 2006, 2007 and 2008.

"I'm obviously flattered and appreciate the confidence (Bowlen) puts in me," Jim Goodman said. "We're gong to try to do the best job we can to pick the players that help Josh win. And I think we've done a pretty good job of that the last three years. So we're just going to continue with that."

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/12/bowlen-has-no-intention-hiring-new-gm/

So who did Goodman draft in those three years?

2006 (this was the biggie)
1 11 Jay Cutler QB Vanderbilt
2 61 Tony Scheffler TE Western Michigan
4 119 Brandon Marshall WR Central Florida
4 126 Elvis Dumervil DE Louisville
4 130 Domenik Hixon WR Akron
5 161 Chris Kuper G North Dakota
6 198 Greg Eslinger C Minnesota

2007
1 17 Jarvis Moss DE Florida
2 56 Tim Crowder DE Texas
3 70 Ryan Harris OT Notre Dame
4 121 Marcus Thomas DT Florida

2008
1 12 Ryan Clady T Boise State
2 42 Eddie Royal WR Virginia Tech
4 108 Kory Lichtensteiger C Bowling Green State
4 119 Jack Williams CB Kent State
5 139 Ryan Torain RB Arizona State
5 148 Carlton Powell DT Virginia Tech
6 183 Spencer Larsen FB Arizona
7 220 Josh Barrett DB Arizona State
7 227 Peyton Hillis RB Arkansas

These would be the three drafts you could call the Goodman drafts. Pretty damn good.

Go here to compare the other teams in the NFL over those same four years.
http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?teamId=2200&type=team

I thought some other teams might have done better, but none really did. Which leads me to the question: Why did they let Goodman go? Maybe Xanders came cheaper? And why hasn't some other team jumped on this guy?
???

P.S. If Powell turns out to be the player I think he's going to be, that last draft was the best of the bunch.

barryr
05-01-2009, 10:38 AM
Hmm, the Broncos also needed defense back in the 2006 draft, but how many were upset then they only drafted 1 defensive player?

vancejohnson82
05-01-2009, 10:52 AM
first of all, any "Flowers for Algernon" reference deserves praise....the English major in me fluttered with excitement when I read that sentence.

the middle draft really relies on Harris' production though, doesnt it?

I'm not taking anything away from the entire body of work, but it seems to me like we hit 2 out of 3

outdoor_miner
05-01-2009, 11:06 AM
Hmm, the Broncos also needed defense back in the 2006 draft, but how many were upset then they only drafted 1 defensive player?

It's funny you say this... Lately I've come to the realization that the 2006 draft is directly responsible for the state we were in last year. Our offense was a supposed "juggernaut" and our defense sucked because of this draft. And that doesn't even account for the fact that we traded for Javon Walker during the draft, as well. That equates to 7 offensive players and 1 defensive player in the 2006 draft.

To me, this means that our offense was a failure last year in the sense that it was not good enough to carry the bad defense. I've said it before, but one elite unit should be able to make up for the shortcomings on the other side of the ball if they are truly "elite". An elite defense should be able to carry a bad offense to the playoffs and vice-versa (the Super Bowl is probably too much to ask).

People try to defend Cutler and the rest of the O last year claiming that the defense dragged them down. That it was not Cutler's fault that the D sucked. Well, looking at the 2006 draft, we can see that this is the way the Team was designed by Shanahan and the Goodmans! Our investment in offense in 2006 shows that Shanahan wanted to build an offensive juggernaut. One that would be good enough to carry a poor defense. And by this criteria, our offense failed last year. I don't care that the D put them in bad positions at times. I don't care that they didn't create turnovers. Based on the resources spent on offense and the lack of resources on defense in 2006, it should have been expected that the D would under-perform. This is why the O deserves just as much blame for last year as the D. Yes, they were very good. But they were not elite. And that is a disappointment based how heavily Shanahan invested in that side of the ball.

Rohirrim
05-01-2009, 11:11 AM
Yep. 13 picks for offense over three years, 6 for defense. And all the D picks have been marginal at best, so far - other than Dumervil.

BroncoBuff
05-01-2009, 11:22 AM
And all the D picks have been marginal at best, so far - other than Dumervil.
So true ... Shanahan seemed to act with frustrated fourishes in drafting for defense: Three CBs in 2005, three D-linemen in 2007 in just 4 picks. It was as if he thought, "F it, I'm tired of dealing with this anemic defense, so I'm just gonna throw this entire draft at them ... that oughtta solve the problem, that oughtta hold the bastards."

This kinda stubborn dramatics might've caused him to dig in his heels with Bowlen about firing Slowick. Even Pat (who regularly professes he's not a football expert) knew Slowick was in over his head.

And we know Shanahan was very defensive about having had so many D-coordinators since Robinson left ... he became borderline indignant about that topic in the post-season presser a year ago - even blurted out the health history of Ray Rhodes (I winced when he did that, very bad form).

And the big one - he foolishly fired Larry Coyer. Many posters here have said - and I agree - that firing Coyer was the beginning of the end for Mike.

BroncoBuff
05-01-2009, 11:24 AM
first of all, any "Flowers for Algernon" reference deserves praise....the English major in me fluttered with excitement when I read that sentence.

When they made the movie of that book they changed the title to "Charlie." I hated that ... I liked "Flowers for Algernon," I loved that little mouse :)

BroncoBuff
05-01-2009, 11:29 AM
A "Flowers for Algernon" reference?!?! Score for Buff! I had to dig through the rolodex for that one. Janitor becomes lead scientist thanks to some experiment,
:thanku:

Shanahan's '95 - '05 drafts = Janitor
Shanahan's '06 - '08 drafts = Scientist


Then the (experiment medicine) wears off and he becomes semi-retarded again, right? Or something along those lines...

Yup, and like the book, the "genius medicine" wore off when he became embroiled in, first, the Jim Bates fiasco and then the Bob Slow-wick disaster.

BroncoInSkinland
05-01-2009, 11:29 AM
It's funny you say this... Lately I've come to the realization that the 2006 draft is directly responsible for the state we were in last year. Our offense was a supposed "juggernaut" and our defense sucked because of this draft. And that doesn't even account for the fact that we traded for Javon Walker during the draft, as well. That equates to 7 offensive players and 1 defensive player in the 2006 draft.

To me, this means that our offense was a failure last year in the sense that it was not good enough to carry the bad defense. I've said it before, but one elite unit should be able to make up for the shortcomings on the other side of the ball if they are truly "elite". An elite defense should be able to carry a bad offense to the playoffs and vice-versa (the Super Bowl is probably too much to ask).

People try to defend Cutler and the rest of the O last year claiming that the defense dragged them down. That it was not Cutler's fault that the D sucked. Well, looking at the 2006 draft, we can see that this is the way the Team was designed by Shanahan and the Goodmans! Our investment in offense in 2006 shows that Shanahan wanted to build an offensive juggernaut. One that would be good enough to carry a poor defense. And by this criteria, our offense failed last year. I don't care that the D put them in bad positions at times. I don't care that they didn't create turnovers. Based on the resources spent on offense and the lack of resources on defense in 2006, it should have been expected that the D would under-perform. This is why the O deserves just as much blame for last year as the D. Yes, they were very good. But they were not elite. And that is a disappointment based how heavily Shanahan invested in that side of the ball.


This is true to a point, I think an elite unit should be able to carry a mediocre, or even poor unit, but not a truly awful one, that is a bit much to expect, and don't forget it wasn't just one unit the offense was trying to carry, ST's sucked too. The arguement that if Shanahan didn't have faith in the offense to carry the defense that he should have drafter more deffense holds true though. And I wasn't on this board yet, but I wasn't real happy about not drafting more D in '06 either. I thought Cutler was a luxury pick and that Plummer was adequate given a good D was pieced together. From what I gathered there were others that were here at the time that agreed with that.

Hulamau
05-02-2009, 12:34 AM
This is the argument several people are making here. Do you see the problem with this line of thinking? It's lumping of grades.

You do realize that you can grade him on his offseason moves and then give him a completely different grade for his "in season" coaching, don't you?

Think about it. We did it all the time with Shanny. A+ for his gameplanning and getting wins with less talent. F for his GM role because he was responsible for getting himself that lesser talent.

See how it works?

Say McDaniels gets to the playoffs next year. That doesn't necessarily mean the moves he's made thus far are the reason why. He could be completely whiffing today, but win during the season because his gameplans are good enough to overcome the lack of talent he provided himself with.

The proof is in the pudding, grading him now is nothing more than a popularity contest, saying you like his picks & decisions, or not. Until we see the final product assembled on the field and give it a reasonable time to gel, given the fact that EVERYTHING is new, then any grades now are just pissin' in the wind, and worth about as much.

Lets talk a the end of the season. But here is a fair measure of success this year and signs that we are moving in the right direction: .... a team playing better at the end than at the beginning of the season, regardless of what our record is this year with all the changes, necessary adaptations and what looks like a truly brutal schedule.

Unlike Shanny teams the last number of years (for quite a while actually) that usually start out looking like world beaters in September only to resemble a disjointed and uninspired high school club at the end of the year, if McD can have us playing our best ball near the end that will give him high marks and we can all have very high hopes for a bright future with him here.

P.S. All that said, I think he's doing a very good job so far. He isn't afraid to buck convention for what he feels is needed to revamp this team in both personnel, scheme, character and intensity.

Just watching his press conferences now is refreshing as he actually gives real answers to most questions and goes in-depth at times. Something Shanny rarely did in later years with his tired and hackneyed platitudes and one liners i.e..."we'll see what we are made of this week" and a hand full of other worn out responses anyone of us could recite in our sleep before he even said them!

No wonder Shanny had lost the spark and ability to inspire these guys! He was a great coach for a good while (and maybe will be again after he recharges and refreshes his own system and energy), but just got stale. For now at least McD has all that energy, enthusiasm and focus you want to see and obviously is sharp as a tack.

I liked the clip of him coaching up the receivers and QB's in mini camp too, very hands on and detail oriented. Long term I think were going to be fine, but that's just an opinion with a long way to go.

Rohirrim
05-02-2009, 09:11 AM
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/image.php?u=6868&dateline=1240666390

He looks like Peter Boyle in Young Frankenstein when he realizes the old hermit played by Gene Hackman has lit his thumb on fire. Ha!

BroncoBuff
05-02-2009, 09:19 AM
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/image.php?u=6868&dateline=1240666390

He looks like Peter Boyle in Young Frankenstein when he realizes the old hermit played by Gene Hackman has lit his thumb on fire. Ha!

"But I was gonna make Cappuccino!"

BroncoBuff
05-02-2009, 09:21 AM
You do realize that you can grade him on his offseason moves and then give him a completely different grade for his "in season" coaching, don't you?
Definitely, very good point. I'm 100% confident in his coaching skills, especially on offense. I just wish he had kept his nose outta the front office. It was Pat's fault of course, not Josh's fault.

TonyR
05-02-2009, 09:30 AM
That's not just Jay-lovers saying that, that's the consensus of the media - that Josh has made rookie mistakes.

Yes, and the media ALWAYS knows what they're talking about...

TonyR
05-02-2009, 09:32 AM
And all the D picks have been marginal at best, so far - other than Dumervil.

And it's not really a stretch to call even Doom "marginal". Perhaps scheme and coaching deserve some of the blame but he was a very average player, at best, last season.

TonyR
05-02-2009, 09:40 AM
The best way for Josh supporters to defend Josh is not to deny he has the power he obviously has, the best way to defend him is on the substance

I think you can "defend him" with the fact that we can't really judge his performance at this point. At the very earliest we really can't fairly judge him until this team has played at least a few regular season games, and even then we can't definitively determine whether or not he has this team going in the right direction.

Another thing that seems lost in the argument is the reason for Goodman's "dismissal". The story we've heard is that the younger Goodman was causing some problems and that they couldn't really fire the son and not the father. I don't think anybody is happy about Goodman being gone but I don't know that we can blame McD for it.

Jason in LA
05-02-2009, 09:54 AM
I agree with every word in that PFW article, but I still say ...

GO BRONCOS! :gobroncos :Broncos: :bronxrox:

For like the first time ever I agree with something that's come out of the website. It's been one bad decision after another. I don't see how anybody with a position that high could consider any of those moves good. I'd say that he's most likely driven this team into the ground. They have 10+ written all over them.

But with all that being said, I'll be rooting for a win every week. I'd love to be proven wrong. I'm rooting for them to prove me wrong.

telluride
05-02-2009, 10:15 AM
Boy, do you guys grade on an tremendous curve. Goodman's "genius" drafts from those three years were pretty much just average. They may look better than they are because: 1) Our previous 7 years of drafting was so horrific; 2) Our talent level was so reduced that players who would be scrubs/backups on a decent team became role players and even starters on the woeful Broncos.

Let's review:

2006 (this was the biggie)
1 11 Jay Cutler QB Vanderbilt *Shanny wanted a first round QB, and Cutler was the only one left. what's genius about that? He would have taken Leinart if AZ hadn't grabbed him. Let's not pretend he found some diamond in the rough, ala Tom Brady.
2 61 Tony Scheffler TE Western Michigan. An oft-injured, solid starter. He's no Gates.
4 119 Brandon Marshall WR Central Florida. A great pick; let's hope he keeps out of trouble.
4 126 Elvis Dumervil DE Louisville. A decent pick. Elvis is a solid situational player. A James Harrison-type find? Hardly.
4 130 Domenik Hixon WR Akron. Nice "genius" job of letting him go.
5 161 Chris Kuper G North Dakota. Average.
6 198 Greg Eslinger C Minnesota. Average.

2007 Let's not forget that your "genius" Goodman turned 7 picks into this motley crew.
1 17 Jarvis Moss DE Florida. Bust.
2 56 Tim Crowder DE Texas. Bust.
3 70 Ryan Harris OT Notre Dame. Excellent pick.
4 121 Marcus Thomas DT Florida. Decent starter by default.

2008
1 12 Ryan Clady T Boise State. Excellent pick.
2 42 Eddie Royal WR Virginia Tech. Excellent pick.
4 108 Kory Lichtensteiger C Bowling Green State. Solid.
4 119 Jack Williams CB Kent State. He won't make this years squad. That's not a "genius" pick.
5 139 Ryan Torain RB Arizona State. Waived. Wasted pick.
5 148 Carlton Powell DT Virginia Tech. Could be good. I'm hoping.
6 183 Spencer Larsen FB Arizona. Looks like a solid role player and ST guy. Just what you want for a 6th rounder. But that's expected -- not "genius"
7 220 Josh Barrett DB Arizona State. Jury's still out.
7 227 Peyton Hillis RB Arkansas. Excellent pick.

Again, a few very good picks and discoveries in there. But, on the whole, that's very average drafting. We had one very good year, one awful year, and one average year.

Finger Roll
05-02-2009, 10:16 AM
Oh, just ONE great draft? ROFL!

Yeah, the greatest draft in the franchise's 50 year history!

yeah he's done a great job drafting offense but a terrible job drafting defense.

TonyR
05-02-2009, 12:27 PM
Boy, do you guys grade on an tremendous curve. Goodman's "genius" drafts from those three years were pretty much just average. They may look better than they are because: 1) Our previous 7 years of drafting was so horrific; 2) Our talent level was so reduced that players who would be scrubs/backups on a decent team became role players and even starters on the woeful Broncos...


I would say definitely "well above average" instead of just "average" overall. I would say Kuper is better than average. And I would note that Clady was a no brainer. It's also well worth reiterating that the defense didn't get near the attention it deserved in these drafts, and that the success rate was much lower on that side of the ball. But other than that I agree with most of what you say here.

Popps
05-02-2009, 01:07 PM
Hmm, the Broncos also needed defense back in the 2006 draft, but how many were upset then they only drafted 1 defensive player?

Yea, people are pretty choosy about their draft anger, huh?

Coming off of a potential SB berth, we go all-offense... despite our defense caving in repeatedly in big games, and some people are fine with that, but now suddenly claim to be offended by a draft where we didn't draft enough defenders. (Despite taking 3 of the first 4 picks on D, and the top DE/LB prospect in the draft.)

Look, Shanahan made his decision in 06. After years of poo-pooing the defense, he was at a crossroads. He could either get serious about it, or continue to try to win with smoke and mirrors on D. He went all-offense in the 06 draft and basically did nothing to improve the defense.

It eventually cost him his job.

As for the genius of our front office over the past three years, let's all settle down just a bit. While we certainly landed some nice offensive players... did we land any defensive Pro Bowlers? How about defensive ROY candidates?

Who did we sign in FA over the last 3 seasons that would be considered an impact player, particularly on D?

When gauging the success of a front office, you've got to factor in free agency, as well as record, defensive rankings, etc.

We certainly drafted some quality offensive players. But, three years removed from an AFCCG, we're near the bottom of the league in defense, have added nothing in FA to help the D, and were barely keeping our heads above .500 waters as a franchise.

Odysseus
05-04-2009, 08:11 PM
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/image.php?u=6868&dateline=1240666390

He looks like Peter Boyle in Young Frankenstein when he realizes the old hermit played by Gene Hackman has lit his thumb on fire. Ha!

That thar is funny I don't care who you are!