PDA

View Full Version : Bowlen Unshaken on Vision For Broncos


Anaximines
05-03-2009, 02:57 AM
Pretty good read on Bowlen and the current state of things without any of Woody's usual cuteness.

---------------------

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_12281980
By Woody Paige
The Denver Post

He would have preferred that the Broncos had drafted more defensive players last weekend.

He has not spoken to Mike Shanahan since he fired him.

His new coach, Josh McDaniels, committed "rookie mistakes," but he fully supports him and is growing more assured he will be outstanding in the long term.

"Win the Super Bowl? Probably not. But if we lose our first two games and that's a possibility I'm not going to panic.

The owner paused and said: "I have short-term memory loss. I know that some of the memories of the Super Bowl championships are fading."

cutthemdown
05-03-2009, 04:23 AM
Pat Bowlen deserves a lot of thanks from the city of Denver IMO. Without him Broncos may not have ever won anything. Obviously he has gotten a lot back but IMO he's more grateful acting then a lot of the fans around here recently.

He a great owner and we are lucky he owns the Broncos.

I hope his memory thing is not the start of something worst and is just an age thing.

TDmvp
05-03-2009, 04:26 AM
Pat Bowlen deserves a lot of thanks from the city of Denver IMO. Without him Broncos may not have ever won anything. Obviously he has gotten a lot back but IMO he's more grateful acting then a lot of the fans around here recently.

He a great owner and we are lucky he owns the Broncos.

I hope his memory thing is not the start of something worst and is just an age thing.



Even as much as I have hated the last 4 months Pat is a great owner and I know what a bad owner does to a team . See the Bengals .

cutthemdown
05-03-2009, 04:31 AM
Even as much as I have hated the last 4 months Pat is a great owner and I know what a bad owner does to a team . See the Bengals .

TD think how hard it would be to stay out of it like he did. To have the self control to not pick up the phone and say I want you to draft more defense!!! has got to be immense.

I can't imagine owning the Broncos and not wanting to scream!!!!!!! DRAFT A DT FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!!!!!

but he's smart he knows that he doesn't really know, and he leaves it to football people.

It's easy to see how much Shanny got so much power.

SouthStndJunkie
05-03-2009, 04:43 AM
The owner paused and said: "I have short-term memory loss. I know that some of the memories of the Super Bowl championships are fading."

That is kind of concerning....I hope it is nothing like the early stages of Alzheimer's.

It's not like he is 80 years old....he is only 65 years old....too young to just have a lot of 'natural' memory loss.

If it is early stage Alzheimer's he needs to get on some medications to help slow the progress of the disease. They have made some progress in the field, but the key is early detection.

SouthStndJunkie
05-03-2009, 04:46 AM
In all seriousness....maybe the memory loss explains the Gary Zimmerman Hall of Fame Induction speech.

Meck77
05-03-2009, 04:50 AM
"People will say I was lucky. I think I've always taken calculated risks," Bowlen said. "In this business, you have to take risks on players and coaches. There's been a lot of that going on lately, but I feel good about the risks I've taken."

Pat's oil business has been risky.
Pat's real estate business has been risky.
Buying the Broncos was risky.
Firing a stagnant manager that was no longer performing. His job.

Firing one of his highest paid employees for not returning his call? A formality.
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/9237/drunkjay.jpg (http://img13.imageshack.us/my.php?image=drunkjay.jpg)





Just another day at the office for a Billionaire.

That is a tough deal that he's potentially losing his memory. All the money in the world won't necessarily help him with that. I hope it's nothing serious.

HILife
05-03-2009, 05:10 AM
Even as much as I have hated the last 4 months Pat is a great owner and I know what a bad owner does to a team . See the Bengals and most of all Raiders.

Fixed it.

Cool Breeze
05-03-2009, 05:50 AM
The owner paused and said: "I have short-term memory loss. I know that some of the memories of the Super Bowl championships are fading."

Perhaps this was toungue in cheek and this is his way of saying he wants some fresh memories of Super Bowls.

elsid13
05-03-2009, 06:03 AM
I like Bowlen but he needs to start thinking about successor. And for a guy that said he was charge, I am surprised that neither McDaniels or Xanders briefed him what was going on. Some would say that is a pattern.

"Bowlen is pleased with the quarterback, Kyle Orton, and the draft picks the Broncos got in return from Chicago, but when told many were puzzled why McDaniels didn't choose more defensive players in the recent draft, Bowlen replied:


"Me, too."

ND Bronco Fan
05-03-2009, 06:26 AM
My memories of the last super bowls are fading too.....I'm in my 30's.....maybe there was a little tongue in cheek there.

Drek
05-03-2009, 06:28 AM
My memories of the last super bowls are fading too.....I'm in my 30's.....maybe there was a little tongue in cheek there.

Thats my assumption, Bowlen has never seemed like the kind of guy who'd divulge that much personal info to the press.

colonelbeef
05-03-2009, 07:07 AM
My memories of the last super bowls are fading too.....I'm in my 30's.....maybe there was a little tongue in cheek there.

it's totally tongue in cheek, I am surprised so many took it literally

Man-Goblin
05-03-2009, 07:24 AM
Probably the most concerning article I've read about the Broncos in a while.

Rulon Velvet Jones
05-03-2009, 07:44 AM
No worries, Pat. Moreno jersey sales will help ease things. Just sign the checks and don't try to make football decisions. That's Jerry Jones ****.

baja
05-03-2009, 08:05 AM
Bowlen is seeking new memories. "I love what I'm doing. I'm enjoying this offseason more than I have in a long time."

Me too Pat, me too...

gyldenlove
05-03-2009, 08:24 AM
Pat Bowlen deserves a lot of thanks from the city of Denver IMO. Without him Broncos may not have ever won anything. Obviously he has gotten a lot back but IMO he's more grateful acting then a lot of the fans around here recently.

He a great owner and we are lucky he owns the Broncos.

I hope his memory thing is not the start of something worst and is just an age thing.

Without him Denver may not have had a team anymore.

TonyR
05-03-2009, 08:40 AM
Bowlen's presence has never been more pronounced than it was during the Cutler saga. Bowlen eventually ordered that Cutler be traded after the quarterback spurned his request to talk about differences he had with McDaniels, who had discussions with other teams about possibly trading Cutler.

"Honestly, I still don't know what happened with Jay. I don't want to throw him under the bus, but I made two phone calls (and there is proof, Broncos executives claim) and left voice mails with my cell number and asked him to call me, and he didn't," Bowlen said. "I don't do e-mails. If Jay had called and said he thought the coach was (not a nice person) and he wanted out of here, I would have said, 'Let's work this out.' But I heard nothing directly from him.

"Pick up the phone! That's where we got off the rails. We had no other choice but to trade him..."

Wait, you mean it wasn't McD's fault? It wasn't McD's decision?

Ellis, several sources say, was instrumental in getting Bowlen to agree to fire Shanahan, hire McDaniels (Ellis alone met with the new coach for a second interview) and trade Cutler.

Interesting.

DenverBrit
05-03-2009, 08:50 AM
The owner paused and said: "I have short-term memory loss. I know that some of the memories of the Super Bowl championships are fading."

Perhaps this was toungue in cheek and this is his way of saying he wants some fresh memories of Super Bowls.

That's the message I got from his comment.
Who thinks of 'short term' memory loss as a decade or more?
It's not remembering where you had lunch yesterday. ;D

lostknight
05-03-2009, 08:50 AM
Bowlen is pleased with the quarterback, Kyle Orton, and the draft picks the Broncos got in return from Chicago, but when told many were puzzled why McDaniels didn't choose more defensive players in the recent draft, Bowlen replied:

"Me, too."


This is a warning shot across the bow. Shanny missed many of these. McDaniels should pay attention.

The memory thing is interesting. It might be his way of explaining away the fact that he told the newspaper many different things about his conversations with Jay.

DenverBrit
05-03-2009, 09:01 AM
This is a warning shot across the bow. Shanny missed many of these. McDaniels should pay attention.

The memory thing is interesting. It might be his way of explaining away the fact that he told the newspaper many different things about his conversations with Jay.

Agreed. I can't remember Bowlen ever making a comment about who to draft or what his expectations might have been.
Bowlen knows his new HC has stirred up the fan base and community and while he will give McDaniels time to learn on the job, he won't show the same patience he had with Shanahan

SouthStndJunkie
05-03-2009, 09:12 AM
My memories of the last super bowls are fading too.....I'm in my 30's.....maybe there was a little tongue in cheek there.

Maybe the writer missed the context of the quote.

I don't know....this was in the article before the Super Bowl part:

His health "is good," but he has experienced "short-term memory loss" in recent months.

baja
05-03-2009, 09:14 AM
Agreed. I can't remember Bowlen ever making a comment about who to draft or what his expectations might have been.
Bowlen knows his new HC has stirred up the fan base and community and while he will give McDaniels time to learn on the job, he won't show the same patience he had with Shanahan

I think you are over analyzing Bowlen, I think he just needs a few lessons in media speak, he should watch some of Shanny's old pressers on how to say nothing in 10,000 words or more.

DenverBrit
05-03-2009, 09:28 AM
I think you are over analyzing Bowlen, I think he just needs a few lessons in media speak, he should watch some of Shanny's old pressers on how to say nothing in 10,000 words or more.

I'm probably overcompensating on his behalf to counterbalance his gutless drunk image. ;D

TheReverend
05-03-2009, 09:29 AM
Ellis, who was director of marketing when Bowlen bought the majority ownership of the Broncos in 1984, has served in several executive capacities. He was named COO last year. Ellis, several sources say, was instrumental in getting Bowlen to agree to fire Shanahan, hire McDaniels (Ellis alone met with the new coach for a second interview) and trade Cutler.

That entire section is extremely curious to say the least. Strange, to say the least, how that was just casually thrown into the article.

BroncoBuff
05-03-2009, 09:34 AM
Bowlen said his new coach, Josh McDaniels, committed "rookie mistakes."

I've been saying this for two months, but was shouted down every time. Glad to see Pat backs me up :thumbs:


The point is, Josh's "rookie mistakes" were all in front office matters ... and the front office is a place he never should have been in the first place. He had no experience there, and we have suffered because of his mistakes.

But Josh has proven he's an excellent coach ... he should have just coached, nothing else. It's Pat's fault for firing Jim Goodman.

TheDave
05-03-2009, 09:36 AM
Not the most confidence inspiring article I have ever read...

BroncoBuff
05-03-2009, 09:40 AM
I think we might be making too much of the "memory loss" statement. It sounds serious, but he said toward the end that it just comes with age. It might've been an off-hand comment.

Plus, he called it "short-term" memory loss, but then, curiously, he said he had forgotten some of the SB stuff ... but the SB stuff is not short term memories ... ???

TheReverend
05-03-2009, 09:43 AM
I think we might be making too much of the "memory loss" statement. It sounds serious, but he said toward the end that it just comes with age. It might've been an off-hand comment.

Plus, he called it "short-term" memory loss, but then, curiously, he said he had forgotten some of the SB stuff ... but the SB stuff is not short term memories ... ???

That's because he had already forgotten that he said "SHORT term memory loss". :)

BroncoBuff
05-03-2009, 09:48 AM
LOL

We should re-make the movie "Memento" with a Broncos theme ....

It'll start with Shanahan fired and Jay traded ... and end with Super Bowl XXXII. :~ohyah!:

TheDave
05-03-2009, 09:52 AM
I think we might be making too much of the "memory loss" statement. It sounds serious, but he said toward the end that it just comes with age. It might've been an off-hand comment.

Plus, he called it "short-term" memory loss, but then, curiously, he said he had forgotten some of the SB stuff ... but the SB stuff is not short term memories ... ???

I'm not concerned at all about the memory loss statement...

The "rookie mistakes" comment, followed by the bewilderment of the cutler issue, topped off by his concerns of the draft is what has me concerned

hades
05-03-2009, 10:00 AM
If he does have short term memory loss, how does he know. Maybe he just thinks he forgot it, but it never really happened?

gyldenlove
05-03-2009, 10:14 AM
If he does have short term memory loss, how does he know. Maybe he just thinks he forgot it, but it never really happened?

He has notes written on all his black lable bottles so he rememebers things.

TheReverend
05-03-2009, 10:35 AM
He has notes written on all his black lable bottles so he rememebers things.

Ellis keeps swapping them with his own notes and that's how he's manipulated the entire off-season.

"Pat, don't forget to fire Mike. - From Pat"

GeniusatWork
05-03-2009, 10:39 AM
Despite Paige's saying "rookie mistakes", he didn't back it up with the direct quote from Bowlen. That is poor journalism.

BroncoBuff
05-03-2009, 11:00 AM
Despite Paige's saying "rookie mistakes", he didn't back it up with the direct quote from Bowlen. That is poor journalism.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt, you know.

Popps
05-03-2009, 11:02 AM
Maybe he doesn't remember our Sueprbowl because it was a bloody long time ago.

As for rookie mistakes, assuming he really said that (there is no quote).... I'm assuming he means the trade talks being leaked.

Fine, but once they leak... it's about what kind of character player you're dealing with. We all know how it went from there.

DarkHorse30
05-03-2009, 11:24 AM
Despite Paige's saying "rookie mistakes", he didn't back it up with the direct quote from Bowlen. That is poor journalism.

Agreed....but then sportswriters often try to CREATE the story from nothing, sim to modern news writing.

Bowlen has been a great owner, while not EVER throwing anybody under the bus. He gave Reeves plenty of time to right his ship, ditto Shanahan.

I think it's great that Bowlen is not afraid of taking chances by hiring McDaniels. I'm surprised that longtime fans would dis this pick because it's not terribly unlike Shanahan getting hired in '95. He was a successful, young OC of a presumed SB-champ-dynasty.

Is there risks (rookie mistakes looming)? Absolutely...but the payoff could be HUGE. I was getting tired of the Broncos (and especially the scoring offense) getting outcoached in big games. The defense was beyond awful.....keeping Slowik was the straw that broke Shanny's back. I'm glad Bowlen and the team and fans can move on, with a little fire in the belly.

BroncoBuff
05-03-2009, 11:40 AM
Is there risks (rookie mistakes looming)? Absolutely...but the payoff could be HUGE.
Funny ... I'm seen as anti-Josh, but I don't see ANY mistakes coming from Josh the coach - I think he's gonna be an amazing, energetic coach.

But I wish he had kept his nose outta the front office. Or more to the point, I wish Pat had stuck to his guns and "kept his nose" outta the front office. Can't blame Josh for wanting to exert authority, to do the shopping for the proverbial "groceries." But you can blame Pat for not putting his foot down, and not extending Jim Goodman full GM authority as he deserved.

Hamrob
05-03-2009, 11:45 AM
Joe Ellis? Wow.

Only time will tell...but, talk about totally altering the course of a franchise. This guy has some power to pull the trigger on all of those decisions.

I think what is really telling...although most don't want to admit it...is that the Denver Broncos offense has never been an issue...not for the past 15-20yrs anyway. So what do we do...we go out and get a offensive minded toddler/coach to take over a team with an already good to great offense and a poor to pathetic defense and what does he do? He gets rid of the franchise QB...and then drafts a RB at #12 and has nearly ignored the front seven...which was/is the weakest part of this team.

Hey, I'm hoping guys like Thomas, Baker, Moss etc. step up....but, I don't care who you are...you have to be questioning the teams direction at this stage in the offseason!

A direction...undoubtedly led by Ellis!

tsiguy96
05-03-2009, 11:52 AM
Joe Ellis? Wow.

Only time will tell...but, talk about totally altering the course of a franchise. This guy has some power to pull the trigger on all of those decisions.

I think what is really telling...although most don't want to admit it...is that the Denver Broncos offense has never been an issue...not for the past 15-20yrs anyway. So what do we do...we go out and get a offensive minded toddler/coach to take over a team with an already good to great offense and a poor to pathetic defense and what does he do? He gets rid of the franchise QB...and then drafts a RB at #12 and has nearly ignored the front seven...which was/is the weakest part of this team.

Hey, I'm hoping guys like Thomas, Baker, Moss etc. step up....but, I don't care who you are...you have to be questioning the teams direction at this stage in the offseason!

A direction...undoubtedly led by Ellis!

the offense last year, after week 3, was 24th in scoring. he should ignore that?

i would question mcdaniels if he DIDNT stick to his draft board and started reaching for players with DT or DE next to their name instaed of picking players he thinks are gonna help the team.

Kaylore
05-03-2009, 11:56 AM
I took his comments to suggest he's tired of re-living the glory days.

Popps
05-03-2009, 12:01 PM
I took his comments to suggest he's tired of re-living the glory days.

I wondered about that, too.

elsid13
05-03-2009, 12:08 PM
Not the most confidence inspiring article I have ever read...

Don't worry all is fine in <STRIKE>Rome</Strike> Dove Valley, ignore that fire. Now where the fiddle.

footstepsfrom#27
05-03-2009, 12:30 PM
The owner paused and said: "I have short-term memory loss. I know that some of the memories of the Super Bowl championships are fading."

Perhaps this was toungue in cheek and this is his way of saying he wants some fresh memories of Super Bowls.
Short term memory loss is losing your keys or not remembering where you had lunch, not something that happened 11 years ago. I think he's kidding, making the point that he's trying to move forward and get beyond the past accomplishments.

Anaximines
05-03-2009, 01:11 PM
Short term memory loss is losing your keys or not remembering where you had lunch, not something that happened 11 years ago. I think he's kidding, making the point that he's trying to move forward and get beyond the past accomplishments.

Yeah, I agree, I was just thrown off because Woody put it in a bullet at the top of the article which (out of context) gave me pause. I guess Woody was just being funny too.

Having a front row seat to what's happened to Al Davis, I think we're all probably just a little overly sensitive :loopy:

Blueflame
05-03-2009, 01:14 PM
Maybe he doesn't remember our Sueprbowl because it was a bloody long time ago.

As for rookie mistakes, assuming he really said that (there is no quote).... I'm assuming he means the trade talks being leaked.

Fine, but once they leak... it's about what kind of character player you're dealing with. We all know how it went from there.

Not really. The Chiefs' last SB win was "a bloody long time ago".

The Raiders' last SB win was "a bloody long time ago".

The Chargers' last SB win... oops, nevermind.

SureShot
05-03-2009, 01:22 PM
I like my Pat Bowlen unshaken not stirred.

Blueflame
05-03-2009, 01:27 PM
I like my Pat Bowlen unshaken not stirred.

I like him unshaken and not slurred...

SureShot
05-03-2009, 01:35 PM
I like him unshaken and not slurred...

:rofl:

footstepsfrom#27
05-03-2009, 02:06 PM
Funny ... I'm seen as anti-Josh, but I don't see ANY mistakes coming from Josh the coach.
Keep in mind Josh the coach has yet to be a head coach at any level. We'll have to wait to see how he handles that job.

Tombstone RJ
05-03-2009, 02:19 PM
The owner paused and said: "I have short-term memory loss. I know that some of the memories of the Super Bowl championships are fading."

Perhaps this was toungue in cheek and this is his way of saying he wants some fresh memories of Super Bowls.

Exactly. He's saying his short term memory loss is a symbol of his NOT living in the past. He hungry again becuase it's been too long since the last SB.

HEAV
05-03-2009, 02:24 PM
The owner paused and said: "I have short-term memory loss. I know that some of the memories of the Super Bowl championships are fading."

Perhaps this was toungue in cheek and this is his way of saying he wants some fresh memories of Super Bowls.

That's how I read it. He's saying he wants to be back on top holding the silver trophy.

But I'm sure many knuckle-heads are going to start the drunk-oldman losing his mind theory.

HEAV
05-03-2009, 02:26 PM
I took his comments to suggest he's tired of re-living the glory days.

Too bad we have a more than a few poster/fans still living in 97-99.

elsid13
05-03-2009, 02:35 PM
Joe Ellis? Wow.

Only time will tell...but, talk about totally altering the course of a franchise. This guy has some power to pull the trigger on all of those decisions.

I think what is really telling...although most don't want to admit it...is that the Denver Broncos offense has never been an issue...not for the past 15-20yrs anyway. So what do we do...we go out and get a offensive minded toddler/coach to take over a team with an already good to great offense and a poor to pathetic defense and what does he do? He gets rid of the franchise QB...and then drafts a RB at #12 and has nearly ignored the front seven...which was/is the weakest part of this team.

Hey, I'm hoping guys like Thomas, Baker, Moss etc. step up....but, I don't care who you are...you have to be questioning the teams direction at this stage in the offseason!

A direction...undoubtedly led by Ellis!

Ellis is George W Bush's cousin, wonder which one was consider the smarter kid.

tsiguy96
05-03-2009, 02:54 PM
Keep in mind Josh the coach has yet to be a head coach at any level. We'll have to wait to see how he handles that job.

do you have anything positive to say ever? no one said hes going to be a great coach, but everything he has done and shown thus far is very promising, cant you just leave it at that?

or do you have to make sure everyone knows he can still fail?

footstepsfrom#27
05-03-2009, 03:12 PM
do you have anything positive to say ever? no one said hes going to be a great coach, but everything he has done and shown thus far is very promising, cant you just leave it at that?
Yes that's why this board is split in half.

TonyR
05-03-2009, 03:17 PM
Keep in mind Josh the coach has yet to be a head coach at any level.

I'm sure the same can be said for almost every head coach in the league when they first got their current job. Mike Tomlin has done okay as a young, first time head coach, just to name one.

BroncoBuff
05-03-2009, 03:27 PM
do you have anything positive to say ever? no one said hes going to be a great coach, but everything he has done and shown thus far is very promising, cant you just leave it at that?

or do you have to make sure everyone knows he can still fail?
You obviously haven't been paying attention if you believe that.

Bowlen himself acknowledged Josh has made "rookie mistakes."

And they were real doozies.

Blueflame
05-03-2009, 03:27 PM
do you have anything positive to say ever? no one said hes going to be a great coach, but everything he has done and shown thus far is very promising, cant you just leave it at that?

or do you have to make sure everyone knows he can still fail?

Is that why most of the respondents in the recent poll expect '09 to be the same or worse (with the most votes going to "6-10") than 2008? Because it's so "promising"? ???

Linkage: http://www.orangemane.com/BB/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=2712

Blueflame
05-03-2009, 03:28 PM
I'm sure the same can be said for almost every head coach in the league when they first got their current job. Mike Tomlin has done okay as a young, first time head coach, just to name one.

Tomlin isn't a former Belicheat assistant....

SoCalBronco
05-03-2009, 03:30 PM
This is a warning shot across the bow. Shanny missed many of these. McDaniels should pay attention.

.

Interesting.

I am not happy that Pat has short term memory loss. Even though I think he's a gutless drunk, I am very grateful to him for everything he did when he was more than a shell of his former self. He was the best owner one could ever dream of and I am sad he has that memory loss. I hope he's getting the best treatment available for that. He does deserve the best for everything he did when he was on top of his game. I hope he has a healthy and long life. I still hope he sells, though, even though I am encouraged by this warning shot across McD's bow, as you say.

footstepsfrom#27
05-03-2009, 03:32 PM
I'm sure the same can be said for almost every head coach in the league when they first got their current job. Mike Tomlin has done okay as a young, first time head coach, just to name one.
Really? You think "almost every head coach in the league" has never been the head guy at any level? I highly doubt that. Most college assistants are HC's in high school first, then eventually move up the ladder to college HC jobs or become assistants for a considerable time before the NFL comes calling. This guy's got less actual coaching experience tof any kind han the vast majority of NFL coaches, either assistants or head coaches. In any case...my post is merely to respond to Buff's statement that he's made no coaching mistakes...which is a true statement since he's had no opportunity to do so yet, as least at the HC level. Being an assistant is a different deal than being the head guy.

Tomlin BTW...was a college assistant for 12 years, WAY longer than McD's coached.

tsiguy96
05-03-2009, 03:38 PM
Is that why most of the respondents in the recent poll expect '09 to be the same or worse (with the most votes going to "6-10") than 2008? Because it's so "promising"? ???

Linkage: http://www.orangemane.com/BB/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=2712

because everyone seems to think that mcdaniels is the reason that jay cutler is gone, not taking into account the fact taht jay cutler REFUSED to speak to him or pat bowlen, the owner of the team, because his name was MENTIONED in trade talks. he went around high fiving people when he found out he was traded after publicly requesting a trade, yet had the nerve to say that he didnt think it would get that far?

everything in the timeline of events states the only reason jay cutler is not a bronco is because of one person: jay cutler

yet people like you refuse to acknowledge that. regardless of record last year, we had one of the worst defenses and special teams in the league, and for 13 games of the season the 24th ranked offense. how is the team gonna be worse? because jay cutler is gone? the record will probably be worse because we face multiple teams primed to go to the super bowl while this team is in transition to a new coach, new defense, and basically entirely new roster.

TonyR
05-03-2009, 03:42 PM
Tomlin BTW...was a college assistant for 12 years, WAY longer than McD's coached.

Now you're backpedalling and changing the argument. You specifically said head coach and that's what I responded to.

TonyR
05-03-2009, 03:44 PM
Tomlin isn't a former Belicheat assistant....

How is this relevant? Are you going to break out the "McD is going to fail because Weis and Mangini failed" argument?

footstepsfrom#27
05-03-2009, 03:46 PM
Now you're backpedalling and changing the argument. You specifically said head coach and that's what I responded to.
I'm not changing anything.

I just addressed what you said...that "almost every head coach in the NFL" had never been a head coach, which is untrue. Tomlin is the unusual exception to the rule, but having said this, I rather doubt his much lengthier time spent as an assistant is irrelevant. Just because Tomlin did this...and did so with a team already ready to win the Superbowl...does not make his situation comparable to this one.

Apples to oranges here...

Blueflame
05-03-2009, 03:54 PM
because everyone seems to think that mcdaniels is the reason that jay cutler is gone, not taking into account the fact taht jay cutler REFUSED to speak to him or pat bowlen, the owner of the team, because his name was MENTIONED in trade talks. he went around high fiving people when he found out he was traded after publicly requesting a trade, yet had the nerve to say that he didnt think it would get that far?

everything in the timeline of events states the only reason jay cutler is not a bronco is because of one person: jay cutler

yet people like you refuse to acknowledge that. regardless of record last year, we had one of the worst defenses and special teams in the league, and for 13 games of the season the 24th ranked offense. how is the team gonna be worse? because jay cutler is gone? the record will probably be worse because we face multiple teams primed to go to the super bowl while this team is in transition to a new coach, new defense, and basically entirely new roster.

My take is that probably none of us will ever know for sure what went on between Cutler and McDaniels. We've all formed opinions one way or another regardless and while some agree with you that it was 100% Cutler's fault; others like me view the front office as having some responsibility for it as well.

"I" refuse to acknowledge how horrendous last years defense was? ??? I've repeatedly posted that the defense and special teams were what McDaniels needed to be "fixing"; not the offense. Yet we still most likely won't have a pass rush, which means the defense will still suck. Because McDaniels didn't address the D-line in the draft or really in free agency either, other than to sign a few guys most of us have never heard of. At least we won't have Slowik anymore, but I'm not sure Nolan's gonna be all that much better. Orton/Simms are most definitely inferior to Cutler, though. And a lot of last year's playoff teams are on our schedule...

Blueflame
05-03-2009, 03:55 PM
How is this relevant? Are you going to break out the "McD is going to fail because Weis and Mangini failed" argument?

And that is different... how... than your "McDaniels will succeed because Tomlin did" argument?

elsid13
05-03-2009, 04:00 PM
Really? You think "almost every head coach in the league" has never been the head guy at any level? I highly doubt that. Most college assistants are HC's in high school first, then eventually move up the ladder to college HC jobs or become assistants for a considerable time before the NFL comes calling. This guy's got less actual coaching experience tof any kind han the vast majority of NFL coaches, either assistants or head coaches. In any case...my post is merely to respond to Buff's statement that he's made no coaching mistakes...which is a true statement since he's had no opportunity to do so yet, as least at the HC level. Being an assistant is a different deal than being the head guy.

Tomlin BTW...was a college assistant for 12 years, WAY longer than McD's coached.

Tomlin only spent 5 years in college ranks 1995 to 2000. From then he was in pro ranks.

tsiguy96
05-03-2009, 04:03 PM
Tomlin only spent 5 years in college ranks 1995 to 2000. From then he was in pro ranks.

and very few college coaches come from the HS ranks, this isnt friday night lights. many are grad assistants or former players for the university.

tsiguy96
05-03-2009, 04:05 PM
My take is that probably none of us will ever know for sure what went on between Cutler and McDaniels. We've all formed opinions one way or another regardless and while some agree with you that it was 100% Cutler's fault; others like me view the front office as having some responsibility for it as well.

"I" refuse to acknowledge how horrendous last years defense was? ??? I've repeatedly posted that the defense and special teams were what McDaniels needed to be "fixing"; not the offense. Yet we still most likely won't have a pass rush, which means the defense will still suck. Because McDaniels didn't address the D-line in the draft or really in free agency either, other than to sign a few guys most of us have never heard of. At least we won't have Slowik anymore, but I'm not sure Nolan's gonna be all that much better. Orton/Simms are most definitely inferior to Cutler, though. And a lot of last year's playoff teams are on our schedule...


as if rookie dlineman make a difference anyway, expecting us to draft one and for them to be game changers is silly, that includes ayers. mike nolan is a far, far superior DC than anyone weve had for quite awhile, theres no reason to think this defense wont be better, especially since there is atleast 7 new starters including 2 NFL safetys in dawkins and hill and a scheme that allows us to get our best players (LBs) on the field: a 3-4

mcdaniels has done a LOT to fix this defense, just because he didnt sign some big names doesnt mean anything when you need SO many new players. the offense CLEARLY needed fixing, how else do you describe the red zone efficiency and the 24th ranked offense after week 3?

footstepsfrom#27
05-03-2009, 04:08 PM
Tomlin only spent 5 years in college ranks 1995 to 2000. From then he was in pro ranks.
Right...my bad...still that's 12 years in coaching, which is essentially the point.

elsid13
05-03-2009, 04:15 PM
and very few college coaches come from the HS ranks, this isnt friday night lights. many are grad assistants or former players for the university.

Actually they usually aren't grad from that school, because they are to close to the players. It a little fraternity and the way it works HC will get his players that want to get masters somewhere a job and they will be grad assistant so they don't have to pay.

Hulamau
05-03-2009, 04:25 PM
I like Bowlen but he needs to start thinking about successor. And for a guy that said he was charge, I am surprised that neither McDaniels or Xanders briefed him what was going on. Some would say that is a pattern.

"Bowlen is pleased with the quarterback, Kyle Orton, and the draft picks the Broncos got in return from Chicago, but when told many were puzzled why McDaniels didn't choose more defensive players in the recent draft, Bowlen replied:


"Me, too."

Dont be too literal with that. This is woody writing keep in mind! And like he said he's happy with who we got and that he isn't qualified to judge draft picks in any event.

I very much liked that he said he was going to give Josh every opportunity to succeed and not pressure him early is we struggle.

Bronx33
05-03-2009, 04:33 PM
Interesting.

I am not happy that Pat has short term memory loss. Even though I think he's a gutless drunk, I am very grateful to him for everything he did when he was more than a shell of his former self. He was the best owner one could ever dream of and I am sad he has that memory loss. I hope he's getting the best treatment available for that. He does deserve the best for everything he did when he was on top of his game. I hope he has a healthy and long life. I still hope he sells, though, even though I am encouraged by this warning shot across McD's bow, as you say.


Really? are you willing to take yet another huge step into the unknown abiss that easy cuase the guy made some tough unpopular decisions finally? i really can't wait for the local hyenas to exploit pats STML kinda like their personel assumptions about his drinking that spread like wildfire though it had zero substance.

Every decision will be under the microscope and bitched about by the local we don't like change club.

Blueflame
05-03-2009, 04:38 PM
as if rookie dlineman make a difference anyway, expecting us to draft one and for them to be game changers is silly, that includes ayers. mike nolan is a far, far superior DC than anyone weve had for quite awhile, theres no reason to think this defense wont be better, especially since there is atleast 7 new starters including 2 NFL safetys in dawkins and hill and a scheme that allows us to get our best players (LBs) on the field: a 3-4

mcdaniels has done a LOT to fix this defense, just because he didnt sign some big names doesnt mean anything when you need SO many new players. the offense CLEARLY needed fixing, how else do you describe the red zone efficiency and the 24th ranked offense after week 3?

Another argument I've tried to make... it was my contention that pursuing a veteran (FA) DT would have been a better way to go than acquiring 3 scrub RBs. However, drafting D-linemen would have been an investment in the future of the Broncos defense.

We've been through the discussion on the offense before (at least I have)... when you have a new starting RB almost every week, then it's difficult to get into a rhythm... fumbles can happen on a simple QB-to-RB exchange when there's no opportunity to really gain a comfort level due to constant change-ups . Also, when a QB knows for a fact that if the defense takes the field, the other team's gonna score at least 3 more points within a matter of minutes, that QB can start taking chances... gambling in order to try too hard to "make something happen" (the "something" that happens sometimes is a turnover).

If we had had a halfway-decent defense last year, our offense would have taken us to the playoffs.

TonyR
05-03-2009, 04:56 PM
Another argument I've tried to make... it was my contention that pursuing a veteran (FA) DT would have been a better way to go than acquiring 3 scrub RBs. However, drafting D-linemen would have been an investment in the future of the Broncos defense.


Name a few you think the Broncos should have looked at. I'm not saying there aren't any, just curious who you might have in mind.

Inkana7
05-03-2009, 05:01 PM
I'm not changing anything.

I just addressed what you said...that "almost every head coach in the NFL" had never been a head coach, which is untrue. Tomlin is the unusual exception to the rule, but having said this, I rather doubt his much lengthier time spent as an assistant is irrelevant. Just because Tomlin did this...and did so with a team already ready to win the Superbowl...does not make his situation comparable to this one.

Apples to oranges here...

Tomlin took over a team that went 8-8 the year before and looked worse than that, going somethng like 1-4 over their first 5 games. Their D couldn't stop anyone and their QB was a mess.

The 2006 Steelers were nothing near the 2008 ones.

Blueflame
05-03-2009, 05:06 PM
Name a few you think the Broncos should have looked at. I'm not saying there aren't any, just curious who you might have in mind.

Obviously the biggest "name" DT in this year's FA market was Haynesworth, although character issues and salary demands were good reasons for passing him up.

Still, I would have preferred just about any player named on this list...

http://gnb.scout.com/a.z?s=61&p=9&c=12&yr=2009&nid=83&lnid=83&rc=16&pid=22

... over the likes of LaMont Jordan.

Inkana7
05-03-2009, 05:08 PM
Obviously the biggest "name" DT in this year's FA market was Haynesworth, although character issues and salary demands were good reasons for passing him up.

Still, I would have preferred just about any player named on this list...

http://gnb.scout.com/a.z?s=61&p=9&c=12&yr=2009&nid=83&lnid=83&rc=16&pid=22

... over the likes of LaMont Jordan.

Jimmy Kennedy, really?

Most of that list consists of 4-3 UTs, and small, Cover-2 types at that.

Just signing a guy because the letter "D" is in his position name doesn't make a difference if he can't play and can't play the system.

tsiguy96
05-03-2009, 05:26 PM
Just signing a guy because the letter "D" is in his position name doesn't make a difference if he can't play and can't play the system.

dont tell them that, they dont understand.

Hamrob
05-03-2009, 05:35 PM
the offense last year, after week 3, was 24th in scoring. he should ignore that?

i would question mcdaniels if he DIDNT stick to his draft board and started reaching for players with DT or DE next to their name instaed of picking players he thinks are gonna help the team.That's what happens when you're always playing from behind on a long field. Had alot more to do with the piss poor defense and horrific special teams units then it did with the #2 ranked offense.

And for the record...it's nice that you've rationalized this all...by saying that our offense really wasn't very good...when the entire league would disagree with you.

Drek
05-03-2009, 05:37 PM
Obviously the biggest "name" DT in this year's FA market was Haynesworth, although character issues and salary demands were good reasons for passing him up.

Still, I would have preferred just about any player named on this list...

http://gnb.scout.com/a.z?s=61&p=9&c=12&yr=2009&nid=83&lnid=83&rc=16&pid=22

... over the likes of LaMont Jordan.

Albert Haynesworth for a team looking to transform into a 3-4?

Really?

The best FA NT was Ron Fields, we signed him. The est FA DE for the 3-4 was Chris Canty, he got grossly overpaid to the tune of $7M a year by a 4-3 defense. That should tell you all you need to know about this year's FA DL class.

But I've made this argument more than a few times before, so its not like one more time around will make a difference.

Hamrob
05-03-2009, 05:40 PM
because everyone seems to think that mcdaniels is the reason that jay cutler is gone, not taking into account the fact taht jay cutler REFUSED to speak to him or pat bowlen, the owner of the team, because his name was MENTIONED in trade talks. he went around high fiving people when he found out he was traded after publicly requesting a trade, yet had the nerve to say that he didnt think it would get that far?

everything in the timeline of events states the only reason jay cutler is not a bronco is because of one person: jay cutler

yet people like you refuse to acknowledge that. regardless of record last year, we had one of the worst defenses and special teams in the league, and for 13 games of the season the 24th ranked offense. how is the team gonna be worse? because jay cutler is gone? the record will probably be worse because we face multiple teams primed to go to the super bowl while this team is in transition to a new coach, new defense, and basically entirely new roster.Actually, I'd have to side with a guy like Mike Mayock who has said over and over again....you don't let a franchise QB like Jay Cutler get out of your franchise...you tell him either you play here...or you don't play...but trading a franchise QB when he's just coming into his prime at 26 is something that doesn't happen...it just doesn't. Who the heck is Josh McDaniels? Say what you like...most of the analysts think McDaniels screwed the pooch on that one!

footstepsfrom#27
05-03-2009, 05:42 PM
Tomlin took over a team that went 8-8 the year before and looked worse than that, going somethng like 1-4 over their first 5 games. Their D couldn't stop anyone and their QB was a mess.

The 2006 Steelers were nothing near the 2008 ones.
They were also nothing like the 2004 or 2005 teams which went 31-7, went to an AFC title game and won a Superbowl. Much of the core of that team was still in for the 2008 team. Surely you're not making the assertion that the Steelers were no closer to a title in 2007 or 2008 than Denver is now are you? That would be crazy. If you are...why would McDaniels need to blow it up?

Again...we're talking about a coach whose never been the head guy. He might be great...we'll know when he actually starts coaching them, not before.

Drek
05-03-2009, 05:53 PM
Actually, I'd have to side with a guy like Mike Mayock who has said over and over again....you don't let a franchise QB like Jay Cutler get out of your franchise...you tell him either you play here...or you don't play...but trading a franchise QB when he's just coming into his prime at 26 is something that doesn't happen...it just doesn't. Who the heck is Josh McDaniels? Say what you like...most of the analysts think McDaniels screwed the pooch on that one!

From the sounds of this article, and other previous articles and statements from the organization, I'm of the opinion that McDaniels was of a similar mindset. He was going to let Jay sit and chill for a little bit, assuming he'd get over his issues when it became mandatory to report.

Pat Bowlen got pissed when he didn't get a response from Jay and he demanded that Cutler be traded. Up until that point McDaniels repeatedly took a stance suggesting that he'd rather wait Jay out and get his face to face when Jay either had to give it to him, or lose pay checks. It also explains why the team went from not looking to move him, to actively shopping him, to traded in about 48 hours, instead of waiting for the draft.

Bowlen made an executive decision. If Cutler wanted out so badly he wouldn't even respond to Bowlen's phone calls then Bowlen didn't want him on his team.

cutthemdown
05-03-2009, 06:15 PM
dont tell them that, they dont understand.

He should consider the source of the poster.

Blueflame
05-03-2009, 06:23 PM
Jimmy Kennedy, really?

Most of that list consists of 4-3 UTs, and small, Cover-2 types at that.

Just signing a guy because the letter "D" is in his position name doesn't make a difference if he can't play and can't play the system.

So it's better to sign a RB that we don't need and who probably won't make it through roster cuts. Gotcha.

cutthemdown
05-03-2009, 06:23 PM
dont tell them that, they dont understand.

Much better to have a 2 yr plan to rebuild the defense. Take the players you think will make great starters in your system on both offense and defense over those 2 yrs. If Ayers works out, and Smith works out, then you draft a DT and ILB that work out next yr things could be looking pretty damn good.

To force building the dline when the talent might not be as great as you think could actually waste a whole draft and set us back even further.

What's funny to me is people talk about Mcdaniels arrogance, then proceed to critique his moves like they know better. People who have never worked in football, many who never even played HS football, are now going to consider themselves expert enough to know what is best for the Broncos.

What is best for the Broncos is to get more physical. That's all I'm smart enough when it comes to football to say. I see them getting pushed around.

Sure I know the terminology, played some football, know the route tree and gap assignments and techniques. So do a lot of other people around here. But still that doesn't make us anywhere near what people working in pro football are.

Mcdaniels is making the Broncos a bigger team. Ayers should end up about 285 pounds, Quinn is 265, Moreno I think can be a 220 plus, they list him at what 217?

To me they replaced Selvin Young with Moreno, Engleberger with Ayers, even though he may play OLB. McCree and Manual out, Dawkins, Hill and a couple of rookies in. Tiny Webster out, Andre Davis in.

Almost every move he has made was done in order to find bigger more physical players.

Hell even Lonnie Paxton bigger then Leach.

True at CB he didn't try to get bigger but really he did pick a guy that is tenacious and will play bigger then his size.

Blueflame
05-03-2009, 06:25 PM
Albert Haynesworth for a team looking to transform into a 3-4?

Really?

The best FA NT was Ron Fields, we signed him. The est FA DE for the 3-4 was Chris Canty, he got grossly overpaid to the tune of $7M a year by a 4-3 defense. That should tell you all you need to know about this year's FA DL class.

But I've made this argument more than a few times before, so its not like one more time around will make a difference.

If they don't have the personnel for (competently) running a 3-4, then "I" think they should stick with the 4-3.

Very few football fans even know who Ron Fields is. Never heard of him, hence unimpressed that he was signed.

Inkana7
05-03-2009, 06:29 PM
They were also nothing like the 2004 or 2005 teams which went 31-7, went to an AFC title game and won a Superbowl. Much of the core of that team was still in for the 2008 team. Surely you're not making the assertion that the Steelers were no closer to a title in 2007 or 2008 than Denver is now are you? That would be crazy. If you are...why would McDaniels need to blow it up?

Again...we're talking about a coach whose never been the head guy. He might be great...we'll know when he actually starts coaching them, not before.

I'm making the assertion that the team was not the kind of team that a coach is a formality. They had some major holes and problems and were only 8-8 the year before the new coach. A lot like another team we know.

Blueflame
05-03-2009, 06:29 PM
Much better to have a 2 yr plan to rebuild the defense. Take the players you think will make great starters in your system on both offense and defense over those 2 yrs. If Ayers works out, and Smith works out, then you draft a DT and ILB that work out next yr things could be looking pretty damn good.

To force building the dline when the talent might not be as great as you think could actually waste a whole draft and set us back even further.

What's funny to me is people talk about Mcdaniels arrogance, then proceed to critique his moves like they know better. People who have never worked in football, many who never even played HS football, are now going to consider themselves expert enough to know what is best for the Broncos.

What is best for the Broncos is to get more physical. That's all I'm smart enough when it comes to football to say. I see them getting pushed around.

Sure I know the terminology, played some football, know the route tree and gap assignments and techniques. So do a lot of other people around here. But still that doesn't make us anywhere near what people working in pro football are.

Mcdaniels is making the Broncos a bigger team. Ayers should end up about 285 pounds, Quinn is 265, Moreno I think can be a 220 plus, they list him at what 217?

To me they replaced Selvin Young with Moreno, Engleberger with Ayers, even though he may play OLB. McCree and Manual out, Dawkins, Hill and a couple of rookies in. Tiny Webster out, Andre Davis in.

Almost every move he has made was done in order to find bigger more physical players.

Hell even Lonnie Paxton bigger then Leach.

True at CB he didn't try to get bigger but really he did pick a guy that is tenacious and will play bigger then his size.

With what? 89 players currently signed, nearly half of them will be victims of the roster cuts anyway. Nothing but camp fodder...

Inkana7
05-03-2009, 06:32 PM
So it's better to sign a RB that we don't need and who probably won't make it through roster cuts. Gotcha.

We don't need? Did you watch our Running Backs last year? Save one, they all sucked and then got hurt.

DenverBrit
05-03-2009, 06:32 PM
So it's better to sign a RB that we don't need and who probably won't make it through roster cuts. Gotcha.

There were two healthy backs at the first mini camp, the rest are coming off of injuries or even IR.

Drafting a first round back was exactly the right move if a first round NT wasn't available.

DenverBrit
05-03-2009, 06:35 PM
If they don't have the personnel for (competently) running a 3-4, then "I" think they should stick with the 4-3.

Very few football fans even know who Ron Fields is. Never heard of him, hence unimpressed that he was signed.

Fan ignorance is no excuse.

But I think the coaches know him well enough to sign him. ;D

DenverBrit
05-03-2009, 06:36 PM
Much better to have a 2 yr plan to rebuild the defense. Take the players you think will make great starters in your system on both offense and defense over those 2 yrs. If Ayers works out, and Smith works out, then you draft a DT and ILB that work out next yr things could be looking pretty damn good.

To force building the dline when the talent might not be as great as you think could actually waste a whole draft and set us back even further.

What's funny to me is people talk about Mcdaniels arrogance, then proceed to critique his moves like they know better. People who have never worked in football, many who never even played HS football, are now going to consider themselves expert enough to know what is best for the Broncos.

What is best for the Broncos is to get more physical. That's all I'm smart enough when it comes to football to say. I see them getting pushed around.

Sure I know the terminology, played some football, know the route tree and gap assignments and techniques. So do a lot of other people around here. But still that doesn't make us anywhere near what people working in pro football are.

Mcdaniels is making the Broncos a bigger team. Ayers should end up about 285 pounds, Quinn is 265, Moreno I think can be a 220 plus, they list him at what 217?

To me they replaced Selvin Young with Moreno, Engleberger with Ayers, even though he may play OLB. McCree and Manual out, Dawkins, Hill and a couple of rookies in. Tiny Webster out, Andre Davis in.

Almost every move he has made was done in order to find bigger more physical players.

Hell even Lonnie Paxton bigger then Leach.

True at CB he didn't try to get bigger but really he did pick a guy that is tenacious and will play bigger then his size.

:strong:

cutthemdown
05-03-2009, 06:37 PM
With what? 89 players currently signed, nearly half of them will be victims of the roster cuts anyway. Nothing but camp fodder...

HUH? None of the players I mentioned will get cut. Sure we have tons of camp fodder right now. And your right even one of the FA RBS could go. Mcdaniels had no idea Moreno would be there at 12 considering many scouts in there overall ranking had him top 10 talent in the draft.

He obviously wanted to stockpile rbs. IMO Broncos will probably carry 4 backs if they think they don't need a FB. If they have ideas about using Quinn and Graham to do most of that work then Hillis has to make team as a RB who could also play FB. Larsen a LB who can play some FB.

That would save Broncos from having to have a full time FB like Pats did last yr with evans.

I'm glad Broncos didn't draft Raji or Brace, IMO neither will make a good NT. Brace plays to nice and Raji is a 4-3. Jackson went to high. Where Broncos picked they made good selections.

cutthemdown
05-03-2009, 06:44 PM
Fan ignorance is no excuse.

But I think the coaches know him well enough to sign him. ;D

Fields knows the position but is rather avg type rotation guy IMO. Still though could be a smart move especially if Ayers plays well. Broncos have tons of work to do but that list she put up for DT is a joke. None of them were going to solve Broncos problems upfront.

Besides whose to say that Baker kid can't learn the NT position.

Mcdaniels said he didn't see any NT in the draft that were ready to play. So he get's Fields and a raw big ass UDFA to teach. Seems to me like that is a pretty smart way to go. If next yr a stud DT/NT is available with your pick you take him. But you don't pass on a RB you think will be a stud because you want to force a DT onto your roster.

You don't sign a DT just because you need one in FA. We tried that and it didn't work remember. FA are risky and big fat FA even riskier. These guys work hard, get the deal, then are crap. You watch Haynesworth has lazy written all over him IMO. Watch him be another Gardner.

Blueflame
05-03-2009, 06:59 PM
We don't need? Did you watch our Running Backs last year? Save one, they all sucked and then got hurt.

Buckhalter also has a history of injury... and Jordan has a history of suckage.

rastaman
05-03-2009, 07:00 PM
Pat Bowlen deserves a lot of thanks from the city of Denver IMO. Without him Broncos may not have ever won anything. Obviously he has gotten a lot back but IMO he's more grateful acting then a lot of the fans around here recently.

He a great owner and we are lucky he owns the Broncos.

I hope his memory thing is not the start of something worst and is just an age thing.

Bowlen is in the same boat Shanahan found himself in......neither has won a SB since 98! Bowlen was a great owner.....just like Shanahan was a great coach.

The only difference here, you can fire a head coach who doesn't win anymore, but you can't fire and NFL owner that doesn't win anymore.

So theres no reason to fill sorry for Bowlen.....Bowlen's Broncos could win btwn 1-5 games over the next 6 seasons and he would still remain the owner of the Broncos; and we the fans can't do anything about it.

Don't feel sorry for Bowlen.........he'll be just fine and laughing all the way to the BANK!!

Blueflame
05-03-2009, 07:01 PM
Fan ignorance is no excuse.

But I think the coaches know him well enough to sign him. ;D

He was what? A third-stringer?

Blueflame
05-03-2009, 07:07 PM
HUH? None of the players I mentioned will get cut. Sure we have tons of camp fodder right now. And your right even one of the FA RBS could go. Mcdaniels had no idea Moreno would be there at 12 considering many scouts in there overall ranking had him top 10 talent in the draft.

He obviously wanted to stockpile rbs. IMO Broncos will probably carry 4 backs if they think they don't need a FB. If they have ideas about using Quinn and Graham to do most of that work then Hillis has to make team as a RB who could also play FB. Larsen a LB who can play some FB.

That would save Broncos from having to have a full time FB like Pats did last yr with evans.

I'm glad Broncos didn't draft Raji or Brace, IMO neither will make a good NT. Brace plays to nice and Raji is a 4-3. Jackson went to high. Where Broncos picked they made good selections.

Hillis is way better than Jordan.

As far as the draft, I'm most peeved about the trading of next year's first rounder to get a second round pick this year.... plus if we're going to groom any young talent on the D-line anytime soon, it might have been nice to pick some.

footstepsfrom#27
05-03-2009, 07:23 PM
I'm making the assertion that the team was not the kind of team that a coach is a formality. They had some major holes and problems and were only 8-8 the year before the new coach. A lot like another team we know.
The point to the 8-8 season is that it was an aberation, based in part on Rothlisberger's status following his accident. The core of the team was intact from the previous two seasons and the same core won a two championships seperated by the 8-8 season.

The real point is that you can't simply say that because coach A won a title his 2nd years as a HC with organization Q that coach B will do the same with organization X...especially when one came to a team with a championship and a conference title game in the bag two years earlier while the other came to a team considerably farther from that goal.

The Steelers are year in and year out one of the best defenses in the NFL...Dick LeBeau being a major reason why, and he was kept in place when Tomlin came on...continuity that obviously we don't have.

cutthemdown
05-03-2009, 07:32 PM
Hillis is way better than Jordan.

As far as the draft, I'm most peeved about the trading of next year's first rounder to get a second round pick this year.... plus if we're going to groom any young talent on the D-line anytime soon, it might have been nice to pick some.

What makes you think the 2 big UDFA can't be taught. Where you get drafted has most to do with timing. A good healthy body going into the yr, no problems with grades, have a good yr, get drafted high.

That Baker kid if you have watched him play some, and now i have, he's really powerful and he hasn't even tried to lift a lot to get really strong. Would you feel better about him if he was drafted in the 5th round, 4th round, instead of UDFA?

Trading the first rounder for a 2nd this yr to get a player that will cause turnovers IMO isn't a bad deal. Next yr a yr away and the picks are devalued by a round. It's always been that way. A pick next yr not as good as a pick right now. Ask the people under that dome in Dallas how quickly things can change. You make moves to make you better now, for all you know tons of next yrs supposed studs in draft could get injured.

Plus the Smith kid made plays in HS, made plays in college, was an all time interception type guy in his conference 2 yrs in a row? something like that.
Broncos don't get any picks because teams don't challenge Bailey, they saftey's stunk, and for some reason Bly had stop getting picks and was more getting burnt. What will you think when the Smith kid starts taking picks back for TDS?

Just one or 2 turnovers a game, slightly better defense over all, better special teams, better running game could make us not miss the big pass play so much. We can make this work IMO the moves that have been made have all made sense.

I do agree Broncos had too many holes to fix all the problems in one yr but IMO the moves made have a good chance to improve the club.

cutthemdown
05-03-2009, 07:38 PM
Hillis is way better than Jordan.

As far as the draft, I'm most peeved about the trading of next year's first rounder to get a second round pick this year.... plus if we're going to groom any young talent on the D-line anytime soon, it might have been nice to pick some.

I like Hillis more as well but what better way to teach the RBS the system then by having a RB that knows it? Plus Hillis was injured pretty bad at end of the yr and sometimes Hammy's pop back into problems as training camp and the pre season move forward. With no other big backs on the team seems pretty smart to me to have 2 big backs to start training camp.

To even say well why did we sign Jordan like it has a huge bearing on what defensive guys we signed is pretty funny.

Besides you don't know what FA defensive players agents Broncos called and were told the player has you far down on the list and wants to visit 5 other teams before coming to Denver. It's not madden football toots.

footstepsfrom#27
05-03-2009, 07:39 PM
That Baker kid if you have watched him play some, and now i have, he's really powerful and he hasn't even tried to lift a lot to get really strong. Would you feel better about him if he was drafted in the 5th round, 4th round, instead of UDFA?
I'd feel better if that statement about him isn't true, because if it is...that's not a ringing endorsement of his work ethic. These big guys are frequently accused of laziness, and having seen a few here that proved that, let's hope this one is different.
Broncos don't get any picks because teams don't challenge Bailey, they saftey's stunk, and for some reason Bly had stop getting picks and was more getting burnt. What will you think when the Smith kid starts taking picks back for TDS?
That reason is called a missing pass rush...something this kid will have to deal with also for now.

SoCalBronco
05-03-2009, 07:43 PM
"He has not spoken to Mike Shanahan since he fired him."


Not surprising.

cutthemdown
05-03-2009, 07:47 PM
I'd feel better if that statement about him isn't true, because if it is...that's not a ringing endorsement of his work ethic. These big guys are frequently accused of laziness, and having seen a few here that proved that, let's hope this one is different.

That reason is called a missing pass rush...something this kid will have to deal with also for now.

I said that because i read an article saying he didn't do as well on his reps of 225 as people thought he should for a huge guy. I should have said I'm assuming he hasn't seen how NFL players lift. If he's lazy I wouldn't know. I'm just saying he should be stronger in the weight room if he has been into lifting.

I'm guessing because he's so big and natural strong in his bodies core, that he has gotten away with not building his upper body. IMO Broncos will try and remedy that by showing him the way, by watching the other pros go at the weights.

Ron Fields though I think could surprise people. Usually I would agree with blueflame that 4 yrs, hasnt done much, probably a bust. But really he got moved around a lot in San Fran and he's only what 27? 28. He's big and scouts inc said he has quick hands and has shown the ability to play the NT. He's not a pass rusher but I'm looking forward to watching him play before i write him off.

Blueflame
05-03-2009, 07:49 PM
What makes you think the 2 big UDFA can't be taught. Where you get drafted has most to do with timing. A good healthy body going into the yr, no problems with grades, have a good yr, get drafted high.

That Baker kid if you have watched him play some, and now i have, he's really powerful and he hasn't even tried to lift a lot to get really strong. Would you feel better about him if he was drafted in the 5th round, 4th round, instead of UDFA?

Trading the first rounder for a 2nd this yr to get a player that will cause turnovers IMO isn't a bad deal. Next yr a yr away and the picks are devalued by a round. It's always been that way. A pick next yr not as good as a pick right now. Ask the people under that dome in Dallas how quickly things can change. You make moves to make you better now, for all you know tons of next yrs supposed studs in draft could get injured.

Plus the Smith kid made plays in HS, made plays in college, was an all time interception type guy in his conference 2 yrs in a row? something like that.
Broncos don't get any picks because teams don't challenge Bailey, they saftey's stunk, and for some reason Bly had stop getting picks and was more getting burnt. What will you think when the Smith kid starts taking picks back for TDS?

Just one or 2 turnovers a game, slightly better defense over all, better special teams, better running game could make us not miss the big pass play so much. We can make this work IMO the moves that have been made have all made sense.

I do agree Broncos had too many holes to fix all the problems in one yr but IMO the moves made have a good chance to improve the club.

UDFA who don't make it in the NFL far outnumber those who do... which is what makes Rod's accomplishments so very impressive. The bigger question is... will we have the luxury of an extra roster slot for any UDFA? Even practice squad slots may be needed for players who could actually contribute this year (if needed) rather than for "projects" that maybe could contribute after a couple of seasons to learn and develop.

As far as the safetys and corners (Bly) struggling, that's what happens when a team doesn't have a pass rush... QBs that aren't pressured can eventually find an open receiver regardless of the quality of the CBs/safeties covering them. I still don't expect that we'll have a pass rush. We didn't have... and we didn't acquire... the personnel to give us one.

Blueflame
05-03-2009, 07:51 PM
I like Hillis more as well but what better way to teach the RBS the system then by having a RB that knows it? Plus Hillis was injured pretty bad at end of the yr and sometimes Hammy's pop back into problems as training camp and the pre season move forward. With no other big backs on the team seems pretty smart to me to have 2 big backs to start training camp.

To even say well why did we sign Jordan like it has a huge bearing on what defensive guys we signed is pretty funny.

Besides you don't know what FA defensive players agents Broncos called and were told the player has you far down on the list and wants to visit 5 other teams before coming to Denver. It's not madden football toots.

Our rookie HC would appear to be drafting players as if it is.

footstepsfrom#27
05-03-2009, 07:54 PM
I said that because i read an article saying he didn't do as well on his reps of 225 as people thought he should for a huge guy. I should have said I'm assuming he hasn't seen how NFL players lift. If he's lazy I wouldn't know. I'm just saying he should be stronger in the weight room if he has been into lifting.
Well having been at Penn State, I think we can assume he's been exposed to lifting weights with a program that would get him to where he needs to be if he's got the natural strength to get there. If he's not as fully developed I doubt it's because he's ignorant of how to lift. Even high school players today are exposed to exceptional weight training.
I'm guessing because he's so big and natural strong in his bodies core, that he has gotten away with not building his upper body. IMO Broncos will try and remedy that by showing him the way, by watching the other pros go at the weights.
You're really defining what I man by lazy. If he's sliding by on his talent without trying to get better...maybe a paycheck changes that...time will tell.[/QUOTE]

Popps
05-03-2009, 08:01 PM
http://www.splendicity.com/makeupminute/files/2009/01/kleenex.jpg

tsiguy96
05-03-2009, 08:01 PM
Even high school players today are exposed to exceptional weight training.
[/QUOTE]

very, very, very few high school players get quality training.

footstepsfrom#27
05-03-2009, 08:24 PM
very, very, very few high school players get quality training.
Untrue. Well developed weight training programs are all over the place now, and even if a school lacks facilities the exposure to public gyms and instruction from college coaches is available to these guys. Certainly no player with two years at PSU can claim he didn't get exposed to proper training regimens or the opportunity. If Baker lacks strength it's either because he's not got it naturally or because he's not been training hard enough to prepare himself. It might very well be true he's more motivated now, but one reason he may have dropped out of the draft was probably due to questions about his work ethic.

zdoor
05-03-2009, 08:28 PM
Out of curiosity, does anyone know how many reps baker did?

cutthemdown
05-03-2009, 08:39 PM
Out of curiosity, does anyone know how many reps baker did?

only 24 which was in bottom half of the DT

OABB
05-03-2009, 08:41 PM
only 24 which was in bottom half of the DT

that less than Cutler did...

well, It's not that important I suppose. As long as he can play NT with a beer bottle in his hand everything will be fine.

footstepsfrom#27
05-03-2009, 08:46 PM
He has talent and some people think he was a possible 2nd round pick but the work ethic is what separates a lot of these big guys. Let's hope if he doesn't have it he develops it quickly. I don't see Fields as the answer at all.

cutthemdown
05-03-2009, 08:47 PM
that less than Cutler did...

well, It's not that important I suppose. As long as he can play NT with a beer bottle in his hand everything will be fine.

I doubt he plays this yr, he has practice squad written all over him.

Fields will play the NT in a 3-4, and DT in the 4-3 with probably Thomas playing end in 3-4 and DT in the 4-3. It won't be special but with better play on back end, maybe doom and ayers can get some pressure from outside.

~Crash~
05-03-2009, 09:06 PM
Don't worry all is fine in <STRIKE>Rome</Strike> Dove Valley, ignore that fire. Now where the fiddle.

about right but he is playing good Cop . He knows there are some very pissed of people and he is trying like hell to down play the Cutler BS . they did not want Cutler simple as that . but now that the draft went to hell they are now worried about the seats being filled so he brags up the full seats all these years ...

LOL good cop pat is my friend ...sell the damn team Pat you sound good an broke.

Well now you know the rest of the story a non football guy is now calling the shots wow what a ****ing mess

summerdenver
05-03-2009, 09:47 PM
From the sounds of this article, and other previous articles and statements from the organization, I'm of the opinion that McDaniels was of a similar mindset. He was going to let Jay sit and chill for a little bit, assuming he'd get over his issues when it became mandatory to report.



I don't know about that Drek. For 1 month after the news broke out McDaniels dd not say single word to support Jay. His standard postion was that as a coach he reserves the right to trade any player. It is only after a month at the owners meeting that he said for the first tiem that Jay is his QB. Even then the next day there was the fox31 scoop that McDaniels is scared of Jay's drinking and his capability to pick up his complex offense. I am not saying that he deliberately leaked the info and I don't know who did it. But looking at Broncos reactions till it was very late I don't think they wanted him back.

While Jay was being roasted in the media none of his team mates or coaches or Management said a single word in support of him. IMO, this more than anything else turned him off. If i were him i would not have returned any of their calls.

I don't think McDaniels is so stupid that he would have sent feelers to teams that Den is willing to trade Jay if he did not have doubts babout Jay. I believe he was genuinely concerned about Jay's short comings. I don't blame him for that - but ultimately he has to prove it on the field that he can win without Jay. We will see.

Hulamau
05-04-2009, 12:26 AM
I took his comments to suggest he's tired of re-living the glory days.

Its clear to me that's what he was implying too. Talking about feel of the Super Bowlen victories in the same sentence made it obvious. Sure at his age, and often a lot earlier, almost everyone has some memory issues.

But I don't think he was announcing impending the start of Alzheimers here to Woody of all people.

In fact, I seriously doubt he would go into that at all in public if he was having serious issues while he is still very much in charge of the franchise and on top of things.

He wants some NEW winning memories while he's still captain of this ship. That is what he was saying.

Drek
05-04-2009, 04:09 AM
If they don't have the personnel for (competently) running a 3-4, then "I" think they should stick with the 4-3.

Very few football fans even know who Ron Fields is. Never heard of him, hence unimpressed that he was signed.

1. They want to run a 3-4, so why should they postpone the transition when the talent isn't on the roster for either front at the time they took over?

2. I'm guessing you implying that they should stick with a 4-3 was also meant to imply that they should've pursued Haynesworth (otherwise it makes no sense). That seems pretty crazy since the guy not only got massively overpaid (for a player with a history of off-field issues, now facing one in fact, and on field behavior problems) but would then effectively be a stop gap as the team looked to move into a different defensive system later on down the road.

3. Just because you haven't heard of Ron Fields doesn't mean he isn't a solid player and the best NT to hit the FA market this year. That isn't saying much for the FA market at NT, but Fields is a competent player, which is a massive step forward for the Broncos DL.

only 24 which was in bottom half of the DT
Baker has some pretty long arms, which is consistently a hinderance to someone's bench capabilities. He plays with very good functional strength on the field and thats what really matters. He's almost definitely going to make the roster in some kind of rotational NT role if you ask me. The lack of depth at the position and the fairly sizable signing bonus they gave him is a strong indicator that he's got an immediate role to fill.

I don't know about that Drek. For 1 month after the news broke out McDaniels dd not say single word to support Jay. His standard postion was that as a coach he reserves the right to trade any player. It is only after a month at the owners meeting that he said for the first tiem that Jay is his QB. Even then the next day there was the fox31 scoop that McDaniels is scared of Jay's drinking and his capability to pick up his complex offense. I am not saying that he deliberately leaked the info and I don't know who did it. But looking at Broncos reactions till it was very late I don't think they wanted him back.

While Jay was being roasted in the media none of his team mates or coaches or Management said a single word in support of him. IMO, this more than anything else turned him off. If i were him i would not have returned any of their calls.

I don't think McDaniels is so stupid that he would have sent feelers to teams that Den is willing to trade Jay if he did not have doubts babout Jay. I believe he was genuinely concerned about Jay's short comings. I don't blame him for that - but ultimately he has to prove it on the field that he can win without Jay. We will see.
McDaniels had said as soon as the next week that Cutler was his QB, that they didn't actively look to shop him and instead just listened to offers, and that he was happy with the QB situation as it was at the time. He wasn't going to coddle Jay and promise him that he'd never ever be traded as though he was somehow above the betterment of the team, but thats the new regime in a nut shell. Everyone is subservient to the betterment of the team. Jay couldn't handle that and ultimately that is why he's gone.

Blueflame
05-04-2009, 04:53 AM
1. They want to run a 3-4, so why should they postpone the transition when the talent isn't on the roster for either front at the time they took over?

2. I'm guessing you implying that they should stick with a 4-3 was also meant to imply that they should've pursued Haynesworth (otherwise it makes no sense). That seems pretty crazy since the guy not only got massively overpaid (for a player with a history of off-field issues, now facing one in fact, and on field behavior problems) but would then effectively be a stop gap as the team looked to move into a different defensive system later on down the road.

3. Just because you haven't heard of Ron Fields doesn't mean he isn't a solid player and the best NT to hit the FA market this year. That isn't saying much for the FA market at NT, but Fields is a competent player, which is a massive step forward for the Broncos DL.


I think that the personnel should be in place before making a change...in other words: working with the talent the team has rather than trying to make do with players in unfamiliar positions, playing unfamiliar roles. And I also think it's a massive reach to call a player who was a 3rd stringer last season... going into his first season as a starter... a "massive step forward". Fact is, we don't know if he's up to the starting job or not.

On edit: Fields' stats are even less impressive than I'd imagined. If we're counting on this guy in the most important position of the front 7... well, we'll need all the other help we can get.
http://gnb.scout.com/a.z?s=61&p=9&c=12&yr=2009&nid=83&lnid=83&rc=16&pid=22

summerdenver
05-04-2009, 05:14 AM
1.
McDaniels had said as soon as the next week that Cutler was his QB, that they didn't actively look to shop him and instead just listened to offers, and that he was happy with the QB situation as it was at the time. He wasn't going to coddle Jay and promise him that he'd never ever be traded as though he was somehow above the betterment of the team, but thats the new regime in a nut shell. Everyone is subservient to the betterment of the team. Jay couldn't handle that and ultimately that is why he's gone.


You are taking too simplistic view here no one calls a team asking for their QB out of the blue - but you are entitlted to your opinion. I do not believe Broncos were not fully convinced about Jay and I don't know if it was his health or alcoholic problems or his ability to pickup offense - gosh there was even a inside source revealing as much to Fox 31. If they were commited to him, i beleive they would have handled it separately.


It is actually not too difficult to understand this if you look at it from Josh McDaniels pov. He comes accross as some one who thinks QBs are fungible ala Mike and RBs. He wants to win with a system and seems confident that he can develop a replacement. Orton did play well last year and we will see how it goes now he has better weapons.

Atwater His Ass
05-04-2009, 06:31 AM
I don't agree with drek a lot lately, but he is absolutely right about the philosophy behind making the switch now. If they are going to make the change, this defense can't get any worse so might as well start this year.

It won't be any better if we keep the 4-3 and if we start the transition now, we can find out what we have with our mass of converted 4-3 DE's to 3-4 OLBs.

Now ignoring the DL in the draft and leaning on guys like Fields to take up the slack this season, well, I just can't get on board with that.

TonyR
05-04-2009, 09:36 AM
While Jay was being roasted in the media none of his team mates or coaches or Management said a single word in support of him...

Which itself is very telling. QB of the team and no support from teammates. If that isn't writing on the wall I don't know what is.

GeniusatWork
05-04-2009, 09:47 AM
I don't agree with drek a lot lately, but he is absolutely right about the philosophy behind making the switch now. If they are going to make the change, this defense can't get any worse so might as well start this year.

It won't be any better if we keep the 4-3 and if we start the transition now, we can find out what we have with our mass of converted 4-3 DE's to 3-4 OLBs.

Now ignoring the DL in the draft and leaning on guys like Fields to take up the slack this season, well, I just can't get on board with that.

The popular thing is to think the DL needed darts thrown at it at DL in the draft for the Broncos to be competetive. That is not a given. There are a lot of different ways for the Broncos to be more competitive in the AFC. I can see both ways in the argument about the DL or front 7 in the draft, but I'm happy with acquiring rookies that can tighten up the back 4. That was definitely an upgrade.

And the FA's brought in were an upgrade to the DL, front 7, and ST's. The rookies were also an upgrade to the ST's.

Overall the whole team has been upgraded significantly. Bowlen and his new guys have cut some slack and upgraded in FA and the draft. Losing Cutler was a bummer, but he didn't want to play here. One thing that was overlooked in the saga was Cutler said he didn't like playing under Elway's shadow. It was too much for him.

So I think the team will do well this season. 10 wins is not crazy-talk. Drek and others have pointed out that the core of the offense (besides Jay) is still with us, including the two best offensive coaches. I really think Jay is replaceable and has been adequately replaced.

Ok, that's enough from me, carry on.

colonelbeef
05-04-2009, 09:50 AM
You are taking too simplistic view here no one calls a team asking for their QB out of the blue - but you are entitlted to your opinion. I do not believe Broncos were not fully convinced about Jay and I don't know if it was his health or alcoholic problems or his ability to pickup offense - gosh there was even a inside source revealing as much to Fox 31. If they were commited to him, i beleive they would have handled it separately.


It is actually not too difficult to understand this if you look at it from Josh McDaniels pov. He comes accross as some one who thinks QBs are fungible ala Mike and RBs. He wants to win with a system and seems confident that he can develop a replacement. Orton did play well last year and we will see how it goes now he has better weapons.

I agree with this post for the most part. I do however think McDaniels has been spoiled if he thinks that QB's are a dime a dozen, and expendable.

footstepsfrom#27
05-04-2009, 10:41 AM
The popular thing is to think the DL needed darts thrown at it at DL in the draft for the Broncos to be competetive. That is not a given.
No that's actually what people would like to spin it as. I don't see anyone suggesting that throwing darts in the draft is what we needed to do just because a guy was listed as DL. We saw D-linemen taken throughout the entire draft, and unless you believe that none of these teams had a clue as to the talent level, then it's legitimate to believe that most of these guys were probably taken where they should have been.
There are a lot of different ways for the Broncos to be more competitive in the AFC. I can see both ways in the argument about the DL or front 7 in the draft, but I'm happy with acquiring rookies that can tighten up the back 4. That was definitely an upgrade.
First...there are NOT "a lot of different ways"...it's been consistently proven over YEARS that this team is undermanned in the defensive line and our primary problems stopping anyone are and have been related to that. So no...that is not a true statement. Second...we don't know that the rookie D-backs will tighten anything anymore than we'd have known if rookie defensive linemen would help.
And the FA's brought in were an upgrade to the DL, front 7, and ST's. The rookies were also an upgrade to the ST's.
If you're talking about Fields...he's a career backup. As to the UDFA guys...nobody has any idea if any rookie UDFA can even make this team, let alone if he's an "upgrade". The history of these types of players strongly suggests otherwise, though I'm hopeful we may find a nugget or two. I find it odd though that you characterize drafting D-line guys as "throwing darts", yet the UDFA guys who weren't considered good enough to be drafted are "an upgrade". No FA, rookie or otherwise...can be said to be an upgrade at this point.

How does that make any sense to characterize the new guys as upgrades when as far as we know they're either role players or marginal talents, or guys with potential who need to be developed?

tsiguy96
05-04-2009, 10:50 AM
How does that make any sense to characterize the new guys as upgrades when as far as we know they're either role players or marginal talents, or guys with potential who need to be developed?

and at the same time, who is to say they are NOT upgrades? most the people we signed on dline have size or experience ideal for a 3-4, and ANY lineman drafted, be it in first round or UDFA, needs to be developed. dlineman rarely make an impact as a rookie, and the team saw greater value in other players early on so they took them instead of dline, yet still managed to get talented players as UDFA who had more question marks surrounding them. several of the players we signed were set to be drafted but werent.

try looking at things from BOTH sides, it will help.

footstepsfrom#27
05-04-2009, 10:59 AM
and at the same time, who is to say they are NOT upgrades? most the people we signed on dline have size or experience ideal for a 3-4, and ANY lineman drafted, be it in first round or UDFA, needs to be developed. dlineman rarely make an impact as a rookie, and the team saw greater value in other players early on so they took them instead of dline, yet still managed to get talented players as UDFA who had more question marks surrounding them. several of the players we signed were set to be drafted but werent.

try looking at things from BOTH sides, it will help.
The point is, none of these guys can be characterized as upgrades, only replacements. We know nothing yet about how they'll play in the NFL just because they played in a 3-4 in college. The argument on rookie D-linemen not making an impact has been used for years in here to argue against drafting them high in the draft. The results have been evident. It doesn't matter if we're talking about Shanny's Browncos and stop gap FA guys or project players pulled off the scrap heap of UDFA...while you *might* find a keeper now and then, sooner or later we're going to have to consistently prioritize going after talent high in the draft to build a young, quality D-line.

tsiguy96
05-04-2009, 11:00 AM
The point is, none of these guys can be characterized as upgrades, only replacements. We know nothing yet about how they'll play in the NFL just because they played in a 3-4 in college. The argument on rookie D-linemen not making an impact has been used for years in here to argue against drafting them high in the draft. The results have been evident. It doesn't matter if we're talking about Shanny's Browncos and stop gap FA guys or project players pulled off the scrap heap of UDFA...while you *might* find a keeper now and then, sooner or later we're going to have to consistently prioritize going after talent high in the draft to build a young, quality D-line.

not if when you are drafting, you see a player of higher value to your team, especially in a year when needs are not 100% evident as we dont know how these players will perform with different coaching, different system etc. after this year the team will likely get a bit more specific with what positions they want, but in a new regimes first draft, BPA for every single draft spot.

gyldenlove
05-04-2009, 11:08 AM
not if when you are drafting, you see a player of higher value to your team, especially in a year when needs are not 100% evident as we dont know how these players will perform with different coaching, different system etc. after this year the team will likely get a bit more specific with what positions they want, but in a new regimes first draft, BPA for every single draft spot.

Considering we have the worst DL in the league, I don't see how you can find players at other positions who have better value.

footstepsfrom#27
05-04-2009, 11:09 AM
not if when you are drafting, you see a player of higher value to your team, especially in a year when needs are not 100% evident as we dont know how these players will perform with different coaching, different system etc. after this year the team will likely get a bit more specific with what positions they want, but in a new regimes first draft, BPA for every single draft spot.
I'm not arguing their right to hold onto an opinion about a particular player or the relative strength of the draft with regard to that position. I'm arguing that "sooner or later"...we will need to prioritize the D-line. That is something that has not been done consistently over the last decade, and to build a long term solution to our D-line woes it will have to be done. It's not going to happen becaue we scoop of a bunch of UDFA and NFL scrubs. Could we find a player? Sure...but we won't build the kind of line we need to win it all by using that as the basic strategy. We'll see how McD handles this in the future. I hope he addresses it differently than Shanny did, which is to say barely at all.

tsiguy96
05-04-2009, 11:16 AM
I'm not arguing their right to hold onto an opinion about a particular player or the relative strength of the draft with regard to that position. I'm arguing that "sooner or later"...we will need to prioritize the D-line. That is something that has not been done consistently over the last decade, and to build a long term solution to our D-line woes it will have to be done. It's not going to happen becaue we scoop of a bunch of UDFA and NFL scrubs. Could we find a player? Sure...but we won't build the kind of line we need to win it all by using that as the basic strategy. We'll see how McD handles this in the future. I hope he addresses it differently than Shanny did, which is to say barely at all.

i agree they need to much like kubiak did in texas, but in his first year drafting when the whole team is a relative unknown, taking BPA is really the only philosophy they could use.

tsiguy96
05-04-2009, 11:16 AM
Considering we have the worst DL in the league, I don't see how you can find players at other positions who have better value.

if you ranked a safety an 8.5 out of 10, and a DT an 8 out of 10, you take the safety. atleast this year when you are trying to just get more talent on the field.

GeniusatWork
05-04-2009, 11:20 AM
No that's actually what people would like to spin it as. I don't see anyone suggesting that throwing darts in the draft is what we needed to do just because a guy was listed as DL. We saw D-linemen taken throughout the entire draft, and unless you believe that none of these teams had a clue as to the talent level, then it's legitimate to believe that most of these guys were probably taken where they should have been.

First...there are NOT "a lot of different ways"...it's been consistently proven over YEARS that this team is undermanned in the defensive line and our primary problems stopping anyone are and have been related to that. So no...that is not a true statement. Second...we don't know that the rookie D-backs will tighten anything anymore than we'd have known if rookie defensive linemen would help.

If you're talking about Fields...he's a career backup. As to the UDFA guys...nobody has any idea if any rookie UDFA can even make this team, let alone if he's an "upgrade". The history of these types of players strongly suggests otherwise, though I'm hopeful we may find a nugget or two. I find it odd though that you characterize drafting D-line guys as "throwing darts", yet the UDFA guys who weren't considered good enough to be drafted are "an upgrade". No FA, rookie or otherwise...can be said to be an upgrade at this point.

How does that make any sense to characterize the new guys as upgrades when as far as we know they're either role players or marginal talents, or guys with potential who need to be developed?

Quickly, I thought there were guys available in round 2 - Barwin and Kruger - Orakpo in round one also to upgrade. After that why draft em if the guys you have already are better locks?

The guys we picked Al Smith, McBath, Quinn in round 2, Moreno, Ayers in round one will also contribute well.

There are many ways to build a competitive team. You want the 49'rs or Cowboys or NE dynasties you have to build it up with good players all through the roster.

lex
05-04-2009, 11:23 AM
Spin. First they make Pat seem like some victim with word choices like "unshaken"...as if he was not culpable. And then he goes on about missing on FAs and remaining committed to putting the best team on the field. Yeah, right, Pat. Thats why McDaniels traded a first round pick in 2010 for a borderline first round pick this year.

I really wish Pat would sell the team...and I never thought Id say that.

gyldenlove
05-04-2009, 11:26 AM
if you ranked a safety an 8.5 out of 10, and a DT an 8 out of 10, you take the safety. atleast this year when you are trying to just get more talent on the field.

You would take a safety who is a little better than a defensive lineman given that our defensive line is a lot worse than our safeties?

If you have a safety ranked 8.5, but your current safeties average out at 7, and you can get a DT ranked 8 with your current DTs average at 5, you are not improving your team as much as you could. That is a bad strategy.

summerdenver
05-04-2009, 11:27 AM
Which itself is very telling. QB of the team and no support from teammates. If that isn't writing on the wall I don't know what is.

Yes. My only beef is with people who criticize Jay for not returning the calls of Mgt and team mates. If i were in his position, and none of these guys have said a word to support me, I would not want to return calls or come back to the team either.

gyldenlove
05-04-2009, 11:28 AM
i agree they need to much like kubiak did in texas, but in his first year drafting when the whole team is a relative unknown, taking BPA is really the only philosophy they could use.

We didn't really draft BPA though did we? The A means available, and since we traded up for 40% of the top 5 picks, we were not waiting around for players to be available.

tsiguy96
05-04-2009, 11:29 AM
You would take a safety who is a little better than a defensive lineman given that our defensive line is a lot worse than our safeties?

If you have a safety ranked 8.5, but your current safeties average out at 7, and you can get a DT ranked 8 with your current DTs average at 5, you are not improving your team as much as you could. That is a bad strategy.

like i said, the whole defense is an unknown. you improve with the best players available, you do not take players simply because they have a DT after their name if you dont think they will contribute. this is patriot drafting to a T, and not a single person here is bitching about how they draft.

when you start taking for need, you end up with tim crowder and jarvis moss.

summerdenver
05-04-2009, 11:32 AM
I agree with this post for the most part. I do however think McDaniels has been spoiled if he thinks that QB's are a dime a dozen, and expendable.

Thats why i think McDaniels is either ahead of his time in his thinking (which means he will be spectacular success) or full of hubris. IMO, there is no middle ground with this guy.

Odysseus
05-04-2009, 11:32 AM
The owner paused and said: "I have short-term memory loss. I know that some of the memories of the Super Bowl championships are fading."

Perhaps this was toungue in cheek and this is his way of saying he wants some fresh memories of Super Bowls.

Bowlen is one of the better NFL owners in this tarnished and muddled league.

footstepsfrom#27
05-04-2009, 11:34 AM
Quickly, I thought there were guys available in round 2 - Barwin and Kruger - Orakpo in round one also to upgrade. After that why draft em if the guys you have already are better locks?

The guys we picked Al Smith, McBath, Quinn in round 2, Moreno, Ayers in round one will also contribute well.

There are many ways to build a competitive team. You want the 49'rs or Cowboys or NE dynasties you have to build it up with good players all through the roster.
My point...is that none of the guys chosen to fill spots on the D-line are more than either NFL scrubs or rookie UDFA players. That in itself is fine...but let's not kid ourselves that these guys are automatically "upgrades". We know absolutely nothing about whether a single one of them can play or not. Not that there isn't promise...there is...Baker for example...but if you're going to call FA pickups, including those who didn't even get drafted...as "upgrades"....then surely you can't turn around and criticize available talent in the draft as "throwing darts"...as if drafting D-line talent offered less avaialbe talent than pulling in guys who didn't even make the draft.

I like the way Kubiak did it in Houston. His first year he has an opportunity to take a QB or a franchise RB whose explosive. Instead he invests in Mario Williams. That pick was roundly criticized in here at the time as stupid. Nobody thinks so now becuase he's had time to develop. Instead people talk about Reggie Bush as a guy who hasn't lived up to expectations.

I'm simply saying this; we MUST prioritize the D-line and we MUST spend high quality draft picks to do so. If it's not this year...fine...but it better be fairly soon.

SonOfLe-loLang
05-04-2009, 11:36 AM
Yes. My only beef is with people who criticize Jay for not returning the calls of Mgt and team mates. If i were in his position, and none of these guys have said a word to support me, I would not want to return calls or come back to the team either.

That's bull**** and insubordination. If you're a very highly paid employee and the guy who signs your checks calls extending an olive branch, you call back. Cutler acted like a child and it baffles me that people keep coming to his defense like he's an innocent victim here. Trades are apart of the NFL, its not uncommon for guys to be brought up in talks. He couldnt handle that because he has the maturity of a five year old. I wish they could have worked it out because I like Cutler as a player, but he was being the extreme a-hole in this situation, not that other way around

lex
05-04-2009, 11:46 AM
I really wish Woody would have asked Pat to reconcile all of his lies and ask him why anyone should consider him trustworthy at this point.

footstepsfrom#27
05-04-2009, 11:48 AM
like i said, the whole defense is an unknown. you improve with the best players available, you do not take players simply because they have a DT after their name if you dont think they will contribute. this is patriot drafting to a T, and not a single person here is b****ing about how they draft.

when you start taking for need, you end up with tim crowder and jarvis moss.
One of the problems with this discussion is that it's morphed into an either/or POV that somehow ascribes better decision making to the BPA philosophy, yet ignores a vital reality; namely that the same people who made player evaluations available to Shanahan also made them available to McD. We didn't fire the scouting department...we merely changed who is running it and he came into that process VERY late. It's foolish to divorce this teams ability to diagnose talent accurately now from how it has in the past because the same people for the most part were providing McD with information that also gave it to Shanny. His focus may be different, but his baseline info is not substantially different in the 2009 draft when it comes to who was thought to be able to play and who couldn't. That's largely being ignored in here. Weather or not there was D-line talent available that is as good as or better than what we took will be proven over time, but don't forget that the same guys who had Moss and Crowder on our radar worked this draft as well.

TailgateNut
05-04-2009, 11:52 AM
I really wish Woody would have asked Pat to reconcile all of his lies and ask him why anyone should consider him trustworthy at this point.


I really wish Pat would come out and tell fans who don't like his decisions to buy their own team and STFU about his decisions.:welcome:

footstepsfrom#27
05-04-2009, 11:58 AM
I really wish Woody would have asked Pat to reconcile all of his lies and ask him why anyone should consider him trustworthy at this point.
A lot of Bronco fans...most I would say...don't really know anything about Pat Bowlen apart from his role with the Broncos. I still see people in here calling Bowlen an "oil man" and a billionaire, and he is neither. Bowlen is a lawyer, and he came into the oil business because his father was a Canadian wildcatter who built a company...a family fortune...and gave him a piece of that pie. Bowlen is a decent business man but that's not how he made most of his money...he inherited it. Bowlen didn't even use all his own money bo buy this team and in fact he entered into some pretty questionable business contractural agreements in order to do so. I mention this because as I stated...Bowlen's a lawyer. The fact that he's won two Lombardis here doesn't make me forget that fact. I don't necessarily trust what he says, and it's got little to do with Cutler, and much to do with his past history of stretching the truth or spinning it...things we know only to well that lawyers are especially good at. Most in fact...find the pinnacle of success in that field in politics.

That should tell you something...or at least give you reason to pause and consider.

tsiguy96
05-04-2009, 12:04 PM
wow you guys are off the wall now. it went from sucking off cutler, to hating mcdaniels, to asking pat to sell the team. just wow.

gyldenlove
05-04-2009, 12:08 PM
like i said, the whole defense is an unknown. you improve with the best players available, you do not take players simply because they have a DT after their name if you dont think they will contribute. this is patriot drafting to a T, and not a single person here is b****ing about how they draft.

when you start taking for need, you end up with tim crowder and jarvis moss.

And Ryan Clady and Eddie Royal.

DenverBrit
05-04-2009, 12:12 PM
I really wish Woody would have asked Pat to reconcile all of his lies and ask him why anyone should consider him trustworthy at this point.

Still whining. Ha!

TheReverend
05-04-2009, 12:20 PM
Still whining. Ha!

But a good point, nonetheless, don't you think?

GeniusatWork
05-04-2009, 12:21 PM
The point is, none of these guys can be characterized as upgrades, only replacements. We know nothing yet about how they'll play in the NFL just because they played in a 3-4 in college. The argument on rookie D-linemen not making an impact has been used for years in here to argue against drafting them high in the draft. The results have been evident. It doesn't matter if we're talking about Shanny's Browncos and stop gap FA guys or project players pulled off the scrap heap of UDFA...while you *might* find a keeper now and then, sooner or later we're going to have to consistently prioritize going after talent high in the draft to build a young, quality D-line.

That's not a bad idea. "Prioritize" is the key, though.

tsiguy96
05-04-2009, 12:21 PM
And Ryan Clady and Eddie Royal.

you honestly think they were taken for need? we were stunned clady fell to us out of the top ten, and mike said he had royal as the top rated wideout on the board. BPA.

GeniusatWork
05-04-2009, 12:26 PM
You would take a safety who is a little better than a defensive lineman given that our defensive line is a lot worse than our safeties?

If you have a safety ranked 8.5, but your current safeties average out at 7, and you can get a DT ranked 8 with your current DTs average at 5, you are not improving your team as much as you could. That is a bad strategy.

Depends on the eye of the beholder. There has been a lot of discussion about whether the DL (and front 7) before the draft was as bad as some people think they were.

OBF1
05-04-2009, 12:32 PM
This quote is the one that gets me... Only if Pat was my father, Bowlen and his wife, Annabel, have five children, but the Broncos' owner said none has expressed "aspirations about running a football team."

WOW

GeniusatWork
05-04-2009, 12:38 PM
Yes. My only beef is with people who criticize Jay for not returning the calls of Mgt and team mates. If i were in his position, and none of these guys have said a word to support me, I would not want to return calls or come back to the team either.

Looking at it that way it makes sense. If none of his teammates, and I emphasize teammates, didn't come to his defense with calls after Jay called them out to come to his defense by saying there would be big repercussions if they traded him. If his teammates didn't support him, then yes it was time to part ways.

DenverBrit
05-04-2009, 12:40 PM
But a good point, nonetheless, don't you think?

Bowlen is no different to any other business owner when it comes to changing his mind.
Honestly, I'd like us all to move on and focus on the upcoming season.
The repetitive complaining about Cutler/Bowlen/McDaniels is stale, and as nothing can be done to change what has happened, it's 'whining' for no purpose.
I'm looking forward to the upcoming season....there have been enough changes to make this one of the most interesting off seasons in memory.

Let it go, enjoy the ride, it's going to be bumpy.

tsiguy96
05-04-2009, 12:40 PM
Looking at it that way it makes sense. If none of his teammates, and I emphasize teammates, didn't come to his defense with calls after Jay called them out to come to his defense by saying there would be big repercussions if they traded him. If his teammates didn't support him, then yes it was time to part ways.

he had already called out every player on defense, yelled at damn near every player on offense, that we saw.

it was said he was a loner in the locker room, if none of the guys liked him why would they go baby him so he would come back to denver.

Kaylore
05-04-2009, 12:44 PM
Gotta love fans with the simplistic "we need to spend high draft picks on D-linemen and if we don't then we failed" argument. If none of the defensive linemen that were picked in the top end of the draft pan out, and this happens more often than not, then McDaniels was totally justified in passing on them. McDaniels has to be wrong before we can criticize this draft and right now nobody knows one way or the other.

This idea that if you need such and such position more than another then you must take a prospect early, regardless of what you actually think of the prospect, is exactly the kind of way bad drafts happen. There are a certain number of players in every draft that become good pro football players. Unfortunately they don't always come out according to what your team happens to need at that particular time. That's why you have to take the best player available - it's better to take all the best players that actually emerge as great pro prospects than reach for needs and get nothing out them. Sure, the day after the draft you'll look good when people assign grades and say "Cinci needs a tackle and so-and-so can come right in and start" but when reality hits and none of them are good football players three years down the road, no one will remember how much your draft "made sense" for the needs at the time. All they'll remember is all the bad draft picks you've wasted and how your team isn't any better.

People here raised hell about wasting a second round pick on a wideout last year when guys like Quentin Groves were still on the board. Groves seemed like a sure fit for a 4-3 and would have bolstered the much maligned defensive line. People accused Shanahan of trying catch his "white whale" on special teams after losing Devon Hester. Well Groves did nothing and Royal became the best rookie receiver in the class.

Need should only be ignored if the BPA you get to doesn't make your football team better than what you have. We have to see if McDaniels is right about his picks. If he is, then he's totally justified. If not, then he'll warrant criticism.

gyldenlove
05-04-2009, 12:48 PM
you honestly think they were taken for need? we were stunned clady fell to us out of the top ten, and mike said he had royal as the top rated wideout on the board. BPA.

Who else was going to play tackle? I would say OT was a fairly huge need and he was one of the 2 players we had targeted. With Walker being busy getting his ass kicked in Vegas, WR was a need too. They were both drafted for need.

GeniusatWork
05-04-2009, 12:56 PM
My point...is that none of the guys chosen to fill spots on the D-line are more than either NFL scrubs or rookie UDFA players. That in itself is fine...but let's not kid ourselves that these guys are automatically "upgrades". We know absolutely nothing about whether a single one of them can play or not. Not that there isn't promise...there is...Baker for example...but if you're going to call FA pickups, including those who didn't even get drafted...as "upgrades"....then surely you can't turn around and criticize available talent in the draft as "throwing darts"...as if drafting D-line talent offered less avaialbe talent than pulling in guys who didn't even make the draft.

I like the way Kubiak did it in Houston. His first year he has an opportunity to take a QB or a franchise RB whose explosive. Instead he invests in Mario Williams. That pick was roundly criticized in here at the time as stupid. Nobody thinks so now becuase he's had time to develop. Instead people talk about Reggie Bush as a guy who hasn't lived up to expectations.

I'm simply saying this; we MUST prioritize the D-line and we MUST spend high quality draft picks to do so. If it's not this year...fine...but it better be fairly soon.

I can agree with that.

gyldenlove
05-04-2009, 01:03 PM
Gotta love fans with the simplistic "we need to spend high draft picks on D-linemen and if we don't then we failed" argument. If none of the defensive linemen that were picked in the top end of the draft pan out, and this happens more often than not, then McDaniels was totally justified in passing on them. McDaniels has to be wrong before we can criticize this draft and right now nobody knows one way or the other.

This idea that if you need such and such position more than another then you must take a prospect their early regardless of what you actually think of the prospect is exactly the kind of way bad drafts happen. There are a certain number of players in every draft that become good pro football players. Unfortunately they don't always come out according to what your team happens to need at that particular time. That's why you have to take the best player available - it's better to take all the best players that actually emerge as great pro prospects than reach for needs and get nothing out them. Sure, the day after the draft you'll good when people assign grades and say "Cinci needs a tackle and so-and-so can come right in and start" but when reality hits and none of them are good football players three years down the road, no one will remember how much your draft "made sense" for the needs at the time. All they'll remember is all the bad draft picks you've wasted and how your team isn't any better.

People here raised hell about wasting a second round pick on a wideout last year when guys like Quentin Groves were still on the board. Groves seemed like a sure fit for a 4-3 and would have bolstered the much maligned defensive line. People accused Shanahan of trying catch his "white whale" on special teams after losing Devon Hester. Well Groves did nothing and Royal became the best rookie receiver in the class.

Need should only be ignored if the BPA you get to doesn't make your football team better than what you have. We have to see if McDaniels is right about his picks. If he is, then he's totally justified. If not, then he'll warrant criticism.

If several of the defensive linemen pan out, then Mcdaniels was utterly wrong and should have his ass kicked. Since we don't know yet if any of those two scenarios will come to fruition, the only thing we can establish is that what was one of the worst defensive lines last year has apparently not been significantly improved in neither the short or the long run with the players we have brought in. If we had gotten a couple of DLs early in the draft, there is at least a chance that we would have had a decent defensive line in a couple of years. Even if Alphonso Smith and Moreno and Quinn and Mcbath all turn out fine, that still doesn't improve our front 7, and we will continue losing games because we can't stop the run and we can't pressure the passer. Rookie defensive linemen never contribute, so evaluating a defensive lineman on his rookie season is not exactly fair. If that was the case then Justin Tuck was a huge bust, and we all know that is not exactly true.

We could have done this:

Trade 12 and next years 1st to Cleveland and get Sanchez.
Trade 18 and 4th to San Diego and draft Freeman.
Trade 48 and 5th to move up a few and get Pat White
Use the remaining picks to draft whatever QB is top of the board.

We would have ended up with 7 or 8 QBs, that gives us a solid chance that at least 1 of them turns out to be good. But that wouldn't have improved the team much, yet we should still reserve judgement until all the players have had a chance to play?

Fact: We had an awful defensive front last year.
Fact: The majority of the defensive front are holdovers from last year (we have brought in Reid, Davis, Ayers, Baker, Fields and kept Moss, Crowder, Mcbean, Peterson, Thomas, Powell, Williams, Woodyard, Larsen, Bailey, Green, Dumervil)
Fact: We could have done more to change it without being unreasonable.

If we suck this year, it won't be much of a surprise, but if we suck next year because we don't have any young DLs who can contribute, it will come down to failing to draft DL this year.

Blueflame
05-04-2009, 01:11 PM
Yes. My only beef is with people who criticize Jay for not returning the calls of Mgt and team mates. If i were in his position, and none of these guys have said a word to support me, I would not want to return calls or come back to the team either.

Actually the die was already cast before Jay left Denver and refused to return calls.... he'd already decided by then that under no circumstances did he want to remain a Bronco if that meant working with McDaniels. He stopped taking calls because he'd already moved on. And we need to move on, too, IMO. The "not returning calls" bit is nothing but a red herring.

GeniusatWork
05-04-2009, 01:14 PM
Gotta love fans with the simplistic "we need to spend high draft picks on D-linemen and if we don't then we failed" argument. If none of the defensive linemen that were picked in the top end of the draft pan out, and this happens more often than not, then McDaniels was totally justified in passing on them. .

It has to be difficult to pass on potential good DL guys. There were only a few of them in the first two rounds, though. that's not a good percentage. So I'm agreeing with you. I do have to point out again that Barwin and Kruger went in round two and we could have got them. Just in case they pan out, then I can say I was a genius.

summerdenver
05-04-2009, 01:21 PM
he had already called out every player on defense, yelled at damn near every player on offense, that we saw.

it was said he was a loner in the locker room, if none of the guys liked him why would they go baby him so he would come back to denver.

You are missing the point here. I am not trying to say if Jay deserved the support of his team mates/Mgt. I have my views on this but they are not based on any insider sources and would hate to force them on any one.

All i am saying is that when no one supported him, the logical course of action for Jay is to not come back.

Blueflame
05-04-2009, 01:25 PM
You are missing the point here. I am not trying to say if Jay deserved the support of his team mates/Mgt. I have my views on this but they are not based on any insider sources and would hate to force them on any one.

All i am saying is that when no one supported him, the logical course of action for Jay is to not come back.

That... plus. If you've already handed in your resignation letter and consider "your boss" to be "your former boss" (which Jay did via his formal request to be traded), then there's no reason whatsoever for taking calls from him to discuss it. Nothing was going to change because they were at an impasse and the decision was already engraved in granite.

TailgateNut
05-04-2009, 01:50 PM
That... plus. If you've already handed in your resignation letter and consider "your boss" to be "your former boss" (which Jay did via his formal request to be traded), then there's no reason whatsoever for taking calls from him to discuss it. Nothing was going to change because they were at an impasse and the decision was already engraved in granite.


It's called "BEING PROFESSIONAL" and acting like an ADULT.

Blueflame
05-04-2009, 02:02 PM
It's called "BEING PROFESSIONAL" and acting like an ADULT.

The point is... it's a non-issue because by that point, there was already going to be no reconciliation or resolution. McDaniels had already fubared his relationship with his QB to the point that there was no "fixing it". Why waste both his own time and Pat's time talking about something that was over? At that point, Jay going back to the Broncos was simply not going to happen no matter what.

TailgateNut
05-04-2009, 02:06 PM
The point is... it's a non-issue because by that point, there was already going to be no reconciliation or resolution. McDaniels had already fubared his relationship with his QB to the point that there was no "fixing it". Why waste both his own time and Pat's time talking about something that was over? At that point, Jay going back to the Broncos was simply not going to happen no matter what.




...or, Jay had already Fubared his relationship with the Broncos. What-f-ing-ever.
He gone!
Good ridance.
See ya.
Adios MFer.

Blueflame
05-04-2009, 02:15 PM
...or, Jay had already Fubared his relationship with the Broncos. What-f-ing-ever.
He gone!
Good ridance.
See ya.
Adios MFer.

Yes, Jay had already moved on before he stopped taking calls. And he stopped taking calls because there was nothing left to say; he was done here. It was already over long before we fans were informed that it was...

cutthemdown
05-04-2009, 03:03 PM
Gotta love fans with the simplistic "we need to spend high draft picks on D-linemen and if we don't then we failed" argument. If none of the defensive linemen that were picked in the top end of the draft pan out, and this happens more often than not, then McDaniels was totally justified in passing on them. McDaniels has to be wrong before we can criticize this draft and right now nobody knows one way or the other.

This idea that if you need such and such position more than another then you must take a prospect early, regardless of what you actually think of the prospect, is exactly the kind of way bad drafts happen. There are a certain number of players in every draft that become good pro football players. Unfortunately they don't always come out according to what your team happens to need at that particular time. That's why you have to take the best player available - it's better to take all the best players that actually emerge as great pro prospects than reach for needs and get nothing out them. Sure, the day after the draft you'll look good when people assign grades and say "Cinci needs a tackle and so-and-so can come right in and start" but when reality hits and none of them are good football players three years down the road, no one will remember how much your draft "made sense" for the needs at the time. All they'll remember is all the bad draft picks you've wasted and how your team isn't any better.

People here raised hell about wasting a second round pick on a wideout last year when guys like Quentin Groves were still on the board. Groves seemed like a sure fit for a 4-3 and would have bolstered the much maligned defensive line. People accused Shanahan of trying catch his "white whale" on special teams after losing Devon Hester. Well Groves did nothing and Royal became the best rookie receiver in the class.

Need should only be ignored if the BPA you get to doesn't make your football team better than what you have. We have to see if McDaniels is right about his picks. If he is, then he's totally justified. If not, then he'll warrant criticism.


SHHH Kaylore don't make too much cents or people will be jealous of your pocketbook.

You can't force fix 5-6 holes on defense in one draft and FA. Especially since RB and a another interior OL were imo still needs also. What you do in that situation is just like Kaylore says. You pick BPA that fits your system period. You don't pass on a great CB because some fans think you need DL worst.

There is only one thing about the draft that is important and it has nothing to do with what position you drafted. The only think that matters is you find good, quality NFL level talent that can start, bkup, play roles, on your football team.

Honestly if you get 2 good starters from each draft you are doing pretty good. You get 3 good starters and well that's a haul IMO.

TheReverend
05-04-2009, 03:06 PM
This quote is the one that gets me... Only if Pat was my father, Bowlen and his wife, Annabel, have five children, but the Broncos' owner said none has expressed "aspirations about running a football team."

WOW

I know, right? What kind of queers did Annabel raise?

tsiguy96
05-04-2009, 03:15 PM
McDaniels had already fubared his relationship with his QB to the point that there was no "fixing it".

this is the problem. you and all your cutlerites who hate mcdaniels seem to think it was him who ruined the relationship. why, because he was discussed in trade talks? "omg i cant believe you talked about trading me! i want to be traded!"

the timeline points to one thing: cutler ruining his relationship with the TEAM. after all, he said it himself: he doesnt play for hte coaches.

lostknight
05-04-2009, 03:27 PM
Which itself is very telling. QB of the team and no support from teammates. If that isn't writing on the wall I don't know what is.

You don't know what it is then ;-)

There were public statements of support, and McDaniels was very careful not to trod out any "legacy" broncos players to the press during this time.

Blueflame
05-04-2009, 03:30 PM
this is the problem. you and all your cutlerites who hate mcdaniels seem to think it was him who ruined the relationship. why, because he was discussed in trade talks? "omg i cant believe you talked about trading me! i want to be traded!"

the timeline points to one thing: cutler ruining his relationship with the TEAM. after all, he said it himself: he doesnt play for hte coaches.

Well.... reports are that he was in the office every day on his own time trying to learn the playbook and get to know the coaches just before everything blew up. Logic says something happened to change him from a guy who was going above and beyond what was expected of him into a guy who was asking to be traded. What could that possibly have been? The obvious answer is that he thought the front office was playing games behind his back and then lying about it. If trust is gone, then any relationship, business or otherwise is usually over. Flat-out, he did not want to work with McDaniels anymore.

TexanBob
05-04-2009, 04:04 PM
I think it's great that Bowlen is not afraid of taking chances by hiring McDaniels. I'm surprised that longtime fans would dis this pick because it's not terribly unlike Shanahan getting hired in '95. He was a successful, young OC of a presumed SB-champ-dynasty.

On the surface, the comparisons are good but if you look further, they are not.

Did McDaniels have previous NFL head coaching experienced before he got the head job in Denver? Shanahan did.

Did McDaniels have success with more than one organization, showing an ability to learn under more than one head coach? Shanahan did.

Was McDaniels previously known to Bowlen through having worked in the organization as a QB coach? Shanahan was.

Hiring 42-year-old Shanahan at the time with previous head coaching experience and previous assistant coaching experience in Denver was far less a gamble than hiring a 32-year-old McDaniels with no head coaching experience, no familiarty with the Broncos or their organization and with, at most, six years of NFL coaching experience on any level as compared to 11 years for Shanahan when Bowlen named him as head coach.

The NFL is a copycat league and I think the success of Mike Timlin is why everyone is in a rush to hire such young coaches. But Timlin was extrememly smart in that he let practically everything Bill Cowher was doing remain in place and adjust to his style only gradually.

I don't think it will be long before the pendulum swings back and GM/owners look for coaches with veteran experience.

Caligula
05-04-2009, 04:09 PM
Well.... reports are that he was in the office every day on his own time trying to learn the playbook and get to know the coaches just before everything blew up. Logic says something happened to change him from a guy who was going above and beyond what was expected of him into a guy who was asking to be traded. What could that possibly have been? The obvious answer is that he thought the front office was playing games behind his back and then lying about it. If trust is gone, then any relationship, business or otherwise is usually over. Flat-out, he did not want to work with McDaniels anymore.

Bingo....
Even when things were great (as far as we could see) at the pro-bowl, Cutler stated that he and McDaniels had talked and he was excited to work with him, learn more about him, and establish that 'trust.'

Then from there...everything the owner/coach did was break that trust.

Well worded post, Blueflame.

Caligula
05-04-2009, 04:10 PM
On the surface, the comparisons are good but if you look further, they are not.

Did McDaniels have previous NFL head coaching experienced before he got the head job in Denver? Shanahan did.

Did McDaniels have success with more than one organization, showing an ability to learn under more than one head coach? Shanahan did.

Was McDaniels previously known to Bowlen through having worked in the organization as a QB coach? Shanahan was.

Hiring 42-year-old Shanahan at the time with previous head coaching experience and previous assistant coaching experience in Denver was far less a gamble than hiring a 32-year-old McDaniels with no head coaching experience, no familiarty with the Broncos or their organization and with, at most, six years of NFL coaching experience on any level as compared to 11 years for Shanahan when Bowlen named him as head coach.

The NFL is a copycat league and I think the success of Mike Timlin is why everyone is in a rush to hire such young coaches. But Timlin was extrememly smart in that he let practically everything Bill Cowher was doing remain in place and adjust to his style only gradually.

I don't think it will be long before the pendulum swings back and GM/owners look for coaches with veteran experience.


Great post...... :notworthy

GeniusatWork
05-04-2009, 04:10 PM
On the surface, the comparisons are good but if you look further, they are not.

Did McDaniels have previous NFL head coaching experienced before he got the head job in Denver? Shanahan did.

Did McDaniels have success with more than one organization, showing an ability to learn under more than one head coach? Shanahan did.

Was McDaniels previously known to Bowlen through having worked in the organization as a QB coach? Shanahan was.

Hiring 42-year-old Shanahan at the time with previous head coaching experience and previous assistant coaching experience in Denver was far less a gamble than hiring a 32-year-old McDaniels with no head coaching experience, no familiarty with the Broncos or their organization and with, at most, six years of NFL coaching experience on any level as compared to 11 years for Shanahan when Bowlen named him as head coach.

The NFL is a copycat league and I think the success of Mike Timlin is why everyone is in a rush to hire such young coaches. But Timlin was extrememly smart in that he let practically everything Bill Cowher was doing remain in place and adjust to his style only gradually.

I don't think it will be long before the pendulum swings back and GM/owners look for coaches with veteran experience.

Pitt and Denver are two totally different situations.

TexanBob
05-04-2009, 04:12 PM
no one said hes going to be a great coach,

Then why was he hired? Who hires somebody to lead their company without believing they are going to be great?

Inkana7
05-04-2009, 05:38 PM
SHHH Kaylore don't make too much cents or people will be jealous of your pocketbook.

You can't force fix 5-6 holes on defense in one draft and FA. Especially since RB and a another interior OL were imo still needs also. What you do in that situation is just like Kaylore says. You pick BPA that fits your system period. You don't pass on a great CB because some fans think you need DL worst.

There is only one thing about the draft that is important and it has nothing to do with what position you drafted. The only think that matters is you find good, quality NFL level talent that can start, bkup, play roles, on your football team.

Honestly if you get 2 good starters from each draft you are doing pretty good. You get 3 good starters and well that's a haul IMO.

If you consistently draft BPA then in a few years you have a roster filled with great players.

Makes sense to me.

tsiguy96
05-04-2009, 05:45 PM
Then why was he hired? Who hires somebody to lead their company without believing they are going to be great?

we all WANT him to be, i personally think he will given the offseason we have had and the team first, hard working mentality he has instilled on the team in only one offseason. its nice to see that again. however, we cannot be positive he will be great, or stink for that matter, until we see it on the field.

footstepsfrom#27
05-04-2009, 06:03 PM
Gotta love fans with the simplistic "we need to spend high draft picks on D-linemen and if we don't then we failed" argument.
So what are you saying then...we shouldn't place a high priority on building the D-line through the draft? How would you suggest we do it then?

GeniusatWork
05-04-2009, 06:20 PM
So what are you saying then...we shouldn't place a high priority on building the D-line through the draft? How would you suggest we do it then?

That's a good question. First, we'll have to see how the DL and front 7 do this year.

Three phase teams tend to win titles.

gyldenlove
05-04-2009, 07:05 PM
If you consistently draft BPA then in a few years you have a roster filled with great players.

Makes sense to me.

or a roster filled with cornerbacks.

fdf
05-04-2009, 07:19 PM
Gotta love fans with the simplistic "we need to spend high draft picks on D-linemen and if we don't then we failed" argument. If none of the defensive linemen that were picked in the top end of the draft pan out, and this happens more often than not, then McDaniels was totally justified in passing on them. McDaniels has to be wrong before we can criticize this draft and right now nobody knows one way or the other.

This idea that if you need such and such position more than another then you must take a prospect early, regardless of what you actually think of the prospect, is exactly the kind of way bad drafts happen. There are a certain number of players in every draft that become good pro football players. Unfortunately they don't always come out according to what your team happens to need at that particular time. That's why you have to take the best player available - it's better to take all the best players that actually emerge as great pro prospects than reach for needs and get nothing out them. Sure, the day after the draft you'll look good when people assign grades and say "Cinci needs a tackle and so-and-so can come right in and start" but when reality hits and none of them are good football players three years down the road, no one will remember how much your draft "made sense" for the needs at the time. All they'll remember is all the bad draft picks you've wasted and how your team isn't any better.

People here raised hell about wasting a second round pick on a wideout last year when guys like Quentin Groves were still on the board. Groves seemed like a sure fit for a 4-3 and would have bolstered the much maligned defensive line. People accused Shanahan of trying catch his "white whale" on special teams after losing Devon Hester. Well Groves did nothing and Royal became the best rookie receiver in the class.

Need should only be ignored if the BPA you get to doesn't make your football team better than what you have. We have to see if McDaniels is right about his picks. If he is, then he's totally justified. If not, then he'll warrant criticism.

Generally, I agree with this thoughtful post. And anyone who reviews my posts knows that I have generally supported the new management. I hated losing Cutler. But also thought that Cutler acted like a petulant 6th grader who, by the end, had to go. Management was probably wise to trade him while he still had trade value; but dang that hurt. I also really wanted a monster nose tackle in the draft. But I'm realistic that maybe that guy didn't exist in the assesment of management. So those are my prejudices. And this post isn't to start another argument about any of these points--just to lay out a question about the BPA philosophy without having to have anyone point to my previous posts.

So now onto my question. How does Quinn fit into the BPA philosophy? I understand EVERY other draft pick as consistent with BPA (again, not trying to start an argument about whether they actually were BPA. Only that I understand the BPA reasoning behind each pick). But not the Quinn pick. That seems like a need based pick for a McDaniels system . . . that is, he may have been BPA for an offensive system that needs two crushing blockers in the Red Zone. But not BPA on the board. Any thoughts?

fdf
05-04-2009, 07:35 PM
You don't know what it is then ;-)

There were public statements of support, and McDaniels was very careful not to trod out any "legacy" broncos players to the press during this time.

I have personal knowledge of the attitude of one of the Broncos about this situation. An OLineman who blocked for Cutler last year spoke to my son's youth group--this happened before the trade but after Cutler stopped talking to Bowlen and McDaniels.

My boy asked the OLineman about Jay Cutler. He didn't want to say anything at first. My boy persisted (and he can charm the fangs off a cobra when he feels like it). Finally, the OLineman said, "Jay Cutler's in the dunce corner."

My boy isn't the only source for this. The adult leader of the youth group who was there remembered it the same way (that's how I learned my boy was wouldn't give up :)

That's not exactly a ringing endorsement from one of your teammates.

DBroncos4life
05-04-2009, 07:38 PM
That's a good question. First, we'll have to see how the DL and front 7 do this year.

Three phase teams tend to win titles.

I've now found out we can't build a DLine through FA because they tend to flop and now I'm learning that the Draft isn't always the best way to build a DLine. I guess we wait and let talented players walk off the streets and play for us.

Look at the front three from the Pats:

Vince Wilfork, Ty Warren, and Richard Seymour all three very good all three drafted in the first round. Thats the team that we are trying to model right?

tsiguy96
05-04-2009, 07:46 PM
I've now found out we can't build a DLine through FA because they tend to flop and now I'm learning that the Draft isn't always the best way to build a DLine. I guess we wait and let talented players walk off the streets and play for us.

Look at the front three from the Pats:

Vince Wilfork, Ty Warren, and Richard Seymour all three very good all three drafted in the first round. Thats the team that we are trying to model right?

there was not a single DL in the draft near as talented as them. very weak draft for DL.

oubronco
05-04-2009, 07:55 PM
On the surface, the comparisons are good but if you look further, they are not.

Did McDaniels have previous NFL head coaching experienced before he got the head job in Denver? Shanahan did.

Did McDaniels have success with more than one organization, showing an ability to learn under more than one head coach? Shanahan did.

Was McDaniels previously known to Bowlen through having worked in the organization as a QB coach? Shanahan was.

Hiring 42-year-old Shanahan at the time with previous head coaching experience and previous assistant coaching experience in Denver was far less a gamble than hiring a 32-year-old McDaniels with no head coaching experience, no familiarty with the Broncos or their organization and with, at most, six years of NFL coaching experience on any level as compared to 11 years for Shanahan when Bowlen named him as head coach.

The NFL is a copycat league and I think the success of Mike Timlin is why everyone is in a rush to hire such young coaches. But Timlin was extrememly smart in that he let practically everything Bill Cowher was doing remain in place and adjust to his style only gradually.

I don't think it will be long before the pendulum swings back and GM/owners look for coaches with veteran experience.

so your saying it isn't Cutler's fault

oubronco
05-04-2009, 07:56 PM
So what are you saying then...we shouldn't place a high priority on building the D-line through the draft? How would you suggest we do it then?

Ignore it like the last decade

oubronco
05-04-2009, 07:58 PM
there was not a single DL in the draft near as talented as them. very weak draft for DL.

and McDipshyt traded away our best shot at one of the good D-lineman next year too

fdf
05-04-2009, 08:08 PM
Ignore it like the last decade

I don't think it's fair to say the broncos have ignored DL in the draft. They have just done a TERRIBLE job. Since Pryce, they have only drafted one, maybe two, DL worth a warm bucket of spit--Heyward (above average but nothing special) and maybe Thomas (who knows how he plays out). There's a long list other than them--Toviessi, Eason, Johnson, Moss, Crowder, Reagor. And that's just off the top of my head. I count a first and four seconds (not sure about Heyward, he may have been a third).

TonyR
05-04-2009, 08:20 PM
There were public statements of support...

Examples? Links? Anything to back this up?

TonyR
05-04-2009, 08:22 PM
Great post...... :notworthy

Not bad, but when did a Red Sox reliever become the coach of the Steelers?

It's TOMLIN.

gyldenlove
05-04-2009, 08:29 PM
I don't think it's fair to say the broncos have ignored DL in the draft. They have just done a TERRIBLE job. Since Pryce, they have only drafted one, maybe two, DL worth a warm bucket of spit--Heyward (above average but nothing special) and maybe Thomas (who knows how he plays out). There's a long list other than them--Toviessi, Eason, Johnson, Moss, Crowder, Reagor. And that's just off the top of my head. I count a first and four seconds (not sure about Heyward, he may have been a third).

It doesn't seem like that many considering how many you need.

TonyR
05-04-2009, 08:35 PM
Hiring 42-year-old Shanahan at the time with previous head coaching experience and previous assistant coaching experience in Denver was far less a gamble than hiring a 32-year-old McDaniels with no head coaching experience, no familiarty with the Broncos or their organization and with, at most, six years of NFL coaching experience on any level as compared to 11 years for Shanahan when Bowlen named him as head coach.


Some of you act like McD is the first "inexperienced" head coach hired in the NFL. Andy Reid was the QB coach in Green Bay when the Eagles hired him. More recently, John Harbaugh was a secondary coach in Philly when the Ravens hired him. Mike Singletary was a linebacker coach in San Fran when named head coach. Tom Cable in Oakland, Mike Smith in Atlanta, Tony Sparano in Miami, Raheem Morris in Tampa... all of them without head coaching experience. You're overplaying this youth and inexperience thing, particularly since McD has some experienced coaches on his staff to assist him.

oubronco
05-04-2009, 08:38 PM
Some of you act like McD is the first "inexperienced" head coach hired in the NFL. Andy Reid was the QB coach in Green Bay when the Eagles hired him. More recently, John Harbaugh was a secondary coach in Philly when the Ravens hired him. Mike Singletary was a linebacker coach in San Fran when named head coach. Tom Cable in Oakland, Mike Smith in Atlanta, Tony Sparano in Miami, Raheem Morris in Tampa... all of them without head coaching experience. You're overplaying this youth and inexperience thing, particularly since McD has some experienced coaches on his staff to assist him.

we'll see only time will tell but if what we've seen so far is the future I'm not impressed

bpc
05-04-2009, 08:42 PM
Bowlen's presence has never been more pronounced than it was during the Cutler saga. Bowlen eventually ordered that Cutler be traded after the quarterback spurned his request to talk about differences he had with McDaniels, who had discussions with other teams about possibly trading Cutler.

"Honestly, I still don't know what happened with Jay. I don't want to throw him under the bus, but I made two phone calls (and there is proof, Broncos executives claim) and left voice mails with my cell number and asked him to call me, and he didn't," Bowlen said. "I don't do e-mails. If Jay had called and said he thought the coach was (not a nice person) and he wanted out of here, I would have said, 'Let's work this out.' But I heard nothing directly from him.

"Pick up the phone! That's where we got off the rails. We had no other choice but to trade him..."

Wait, you mean it wasn't McD's fault? It wasn't McD's decision?

Ellis, several sources say, was instrumental in getting Bowlen to agree to fire Shanahan, hire McDaniels (Ellis alone met with the new coach for a second interview) and trade Cutler.

Interesting.

<a href="http://s434.photobucket.com/albums/qq68/bpc5180/?action=view&current=TheTwoTowers_WormtongueAndKingTheod.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i434.photobucket.com/albums/qq68/bpc5180/TheTwoTowers_WormtongueAndKingTheod.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

It's good to know that Joe Ellis is now in the building.

Cito Pelon
05-04-2009, 08:47 PM
Generally, I agree with this thoughtful post. And anyone who reviews my posts knows that I have generally supported the new management. I hated losing Cutler. But also thought that Cutler acted like a petulant 6th grader who, by the end, had to go. Management was probably wise to trade him while he still had trade value; but dang that hurt. I also really wanted a monster nose tackle in the draft. But I'm realistic that maybe that guy didn't exist in the assesment of management. So those are my prejudices. And this post isn't to start another argument about any of these points--just to lay out a question about the BPA philosophy without having to have anyone point to my previous posts.

So now onto my question. How does Quinn fit into the BPA philosophy? I understand EVERY other draft pick as consistent with BPA (again, not trying to start an argument about whether they actually were BPA. Only that I understand the BPA reasoning behind each pick). But not the Quinn pick. That seems like a need based pick for a McDaniels system . . . that is, he may have been BPA for an offensive system that needs two crushing blockers in the Red Zone. But not BPA on the board. Any thoughts?

I guess the bottom line was Quinn is projected as a four down man.

SouthStndJunkie
05-04-2009, 09:13 PM
This quote is the one that gets me... Only if Pat was my father, Bowlen and his wife, Annabel, have five children, but the Broncos' owner said none has expressed "aspirations about running a football team."

WOW

I am sure they are more interested in selling the team and splitting the fortune down the line.

TailgateNut
05-05-2009, 10:25 AM
I have personal knowledge of the attitude of one of the Broncos about this situation. An OLineman who blocked for Cutler last year spoke to my son's youth group--this happened before the trade but after Cutler stopped talking to Bowlen and McDaniels.

My boy asked the OLineman about Jay Cutler. He didn't want to say anything at first. My boy persisted (and he can charm the fangs off a cobra when he feels like it). Finally, the OLineman said, "Jay Cutler's in the dunce corner."

My boy isn't the only source for this. The adult leader of the youth group who was there remembered it the same way (that's how I learned my boy was wouldn't give up :)

That's not exactly a ringing endorsement from one of your teammates.


...and as I stated before, a freind of mine who attended a "sports award dinner" and by coincidence sat with some insiders learned that things "soured" after Cutler was approached re: his drinking issues and health concerns with his diabetes.

Take it for what it's worth. I believe he doesn't like to be told how to behave and what not to do.

fdf
05-05-2009, 11:07 AM
I guess the bottom line was Quinn is projected as a four down man.

So you think management believes he can replace Graham? Do I understand you correctly?

fdf
05-05-2009, 11:10 AM
...and as I stated before, a freind of mine who attended a "sports award dinner" and by coincidence sat with some insiders learned that things "soured" after Cutler was approached re: his drinking issues and health concerns with his diabetes.

Take it for what it's worth. I believe he doesn't like to be told how to behave and what not to do.

If he has a drinking problem, that would be a typical reaction. If that's a problem for him, I hope maybe this is a wakeup call.

But in any event, I'm rooting for him to stink it up next year so we get a good draft pick. After that, I don't care. But I wouldn't wish a drinking problem on anyone--even next year :)

tsiguy96
05-05-2009, 11:11 AM
So you think management believes he can replace Graham? Do I understand you correctly?

in addition to, fool.

lex
05-05-2009, 11:12 AM
A lot of Bronco fans...most I would say...don't really know anything about Pat Bowlen apart from his role with the Broncos. I still see people in here calling Bowlen an "oil man" and a billionaire, and he is neither. Bowlen is a lawyer, and he came into the oil business because his father was a Canadian wildcatter who built a company...a family fortune...and gave him a piece of that pie. Bowlen is a decent business man but that's not how he made most of his money...he inherited it. Bowlen didn't even use all his own money bo buy this team and in fact he entered into some pretty questionable business contractural agreements in order to do so. I mention this because as I stated...Bowlen's a lawyer. The fact that he's won two Lombardis here doesn't make me forget that fact. I don't necessarily trust what he says, and it's got little to do with Cutler, and much to do with his past history of stretching the truth or spinning it...things we know only to well that lawyers are especially good at. Most in fact...find the pinnacle of success in that field in politics.

That should tell you something...or at least give you reason to pause and consider.

I realize this. And its partly why Im highly skeptical of what he says or does. I think people just like to ignore this stuff because theyd rather be blindly optimistic. There is something dubious going on with Pat. I dont really believe him when he says using the first round pick on a 2nd had nothing to do with money. Pat has been kvetching about the economics of football for a while now.

People also seem to forget that, once upon a time, the Pats were seen as a team that was "accomplishing" a lot while managing costs. The Patriots somehow managed to get people to play for less than what they were worth. Im guessing this appealed to Pat even though he justified asking for a stadium to generate revenue to pour back into the team. Now, it seems, he would rather pocket that money. To his credit, he was willing to spend some money but the fact that some didnt work doesnt change the fact that the stadium justified pouring more money into the team.

Caligula
05-05-2009, 11:28 AM
So you think management believes he can replace Graham? Do I understand you correctly?

I believe this, yes.

Graham wasn't resigned in NE, where McD is from. Graham is to earn a hefty salary and we just moved UP in the draft a guy that is just like him. So I'm thinking the writing is on the wall for Graham, and this is his last year in Denver.

Blueflame
05-05-2009, 12:54 PM
...and as I stated before, a freind of mine who attended a "sports award dinner" and by coincidence sat with some insiders learned that things "soured" after Cutler was approached re: his drinking issues and health concerns with his diabetes.

Take it for what it's worth. I believe he doesn't like to be told how to behave and what not to do.

Y'know, this isn't exactly an unusual phenomenon for young men his age... :)

kamakazi_kal
05-05-2009, 12:57 PM
[QUOTE=TailgateNut;2408515]...and as I stated before, a freind of mine who attended a "sports award dinner" and by coincidence sat with some insiders
QUOTE]

you lost me right about there.

DenverBrit
05-05-2009, 01:00 PM
I believe this, yes.

Graham wasn't resigned in NE, where McD is from. Graham is to earn a hefty salary and we just moved UP in the draft a guy that is just like him. So I'm thinking the writing is on the wall for Graham, and this is his last year in Denver.

The Quinn drafting makes this scenario very possible.

Hopefully, Graham will be willing to renegotiate his contract and stick around.

TailgateNut
05-05-2009, 01:04 PM
[QUOTE=TailgateNut;2408515]...and as I stated before, a freind of mine who attended a "sports award dinner" and by coincidence sat with some insiders
QUOTE]

you lost me right about there.


Get lost easily?