PDA

View Full Version : interesting take on Broncos situation


Gort
01-04-2010, 08:14 AM
saw some anonymous guy posting his thoughts on denverpost.com, and although there's no way to know what's true and what's not, he did bring up some interesting points not really being discussed here. i'll quote him to see what the rest of the OM thinks.

The issues in Denver go way beyond what you are seeing on the surface. McDaniels was a hire based on finances only. It certainly has turned out that he is obviously not ready to be a head coach at the NFL level, as I pointed out many reasons why in my last post. What looms next year is the NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement. If you wonder why there were so many teams that hired unproven, young coaches this past season, wonder no more! A good friend of mine was fired from the Raiders' coaching staff this past season and we discussed all the intricacies associated with the CBA. Many NFL owners did not want to sign big time coaches to big time contracts just prior to the CBA. This includes assistants who had been in the league for several years. The CBA could have so many structural changes that will dictate future contracts and free agency for players that many of the owners, particularly one's feeling more of a financial strain, simply didn't want to get tied down with big money deals before negotiations.

Now I'll really help you make sense of this mess in Denver. Do you really want to know why Cutler was traded? Yes, McDaniels put the paper in the fireplace to start the fire based upon an over blown ego but Bowlen took this as an opportunity to dump a big time player with a big contract and an even bigger contract in the future. After all, it was Bowlen who told McDaniels to trade him. Wonder why Marshall's contract wasn't re-negotiated? Same reason. Remember, Bowlen is stuck with paying off Shanahan's contract which has created a bit of a financial strain on him in this economy, which has been stated. However, Bowlen probably figured that Shanahan would get another contract after being fired which would negate the rest of Bowlen's contract with him. Shanahan stuck it to Bowlen by sitting out a year. There are reasons why they don't talk anymore and probably won't ever again.

So, replace him with a kid head coach that wouldn't require a big time contract and then just ride it out, good or bad, until the CBA. At this point it's about money for Mr. Bowlen and not about winning. Successful business men are that for a reason because when it comes down to it, they have become successful based on financial decisions that are in THEIR best interests.

Whether McDaniels became successful or not had nothing to do with it. If he failed, which he has and will, he'll get fired after next season, just before the CBA. Remember, in the end, the NFL is a business and a big one at that! Fans will always play second fiddle to finances.

and a little later on the same thread...

First and foremost I'm a fan as I grew up next door to a former Broncos coach from a young age. However, having coached at the professional and collegiate levels as well as knowing several coaches currently in the NFL I'd like to clear up the often quoted misconception that it took 6 games for other teams to get a bead on what the Broncos were doing. Offenses and defenses in the NFL are recycled over and over and over. Some coaches put a few different spins on things and some have different terminology. The bottom line though is that a 3-4 defense is a 3-4, a zone blocking scheme is a zone blocking scheme, and and an unbalanced line is an unbalanced line! The point that I'm making is that coaches in the NFL have seen the same things thousands of times. It doesn't take NFL coaches 6 games to figure out what another professional team is doing! If it took that long they would all still be coaching in high school. When a team goes 6-0 to start a season then mysteriously falls apart, with injuries not being a factor, this almost always points to internal issues. McDaniels probably lost the team much earlier than everyone thinks. Once you lose even a portion of a team you are done...unless you clean house and bring in players that aren't on the other side of the line. That's exactly what McDaniels is attempting to do. However, a bad coach will eventually lose those players as well. McDaniels is coaching with far too much ego and has probably even lost some of his staff members. When you see a professional head coach screaming at one of his assistants on the sidelines that is not a good thing. The repercussions are tremendous. I absolutely hated coaching with guys who were like that and I don't know any good coach who does. This is all aside from the fact that there are more personel moves and coaching changes for pure financial reasons than anyone would ever know about. So, to respond, I don't say things I don't know.


the 2 things i find most interesting are:

1) that Shanny sat out a year to spite Bowlen and that they are no longer friends. i can completely see Shanny doing that.

2) that the argument about the league needing 6 games to figure out the new Broncos was silly and that teams starting 6-0 and finishing 8-8 are a clear sign of internal dissension. i honestly buy this argument more than the one that says the league needed 6 games to figure us out. McD's stubborn behavior during the slide sure seems to me to be consistent with a coach trying to impose his will on his team.

Beantown Bronco
01-04-2010, 08:31 AM
Lost all credibility when he said injuries weren't a factor.

Merlin
01-04-2010, 08:38 AM
Lost all credibility when he said injuries weren't a factor.
They weren't. Team's have succeeded with far worse injuries. Denver has performed far better on offense with far worse injuries. Any attempt to defend McD based on injuries when it was clear week after week he was being out-coached is just ludicrous.

vancejohnson82
01-04-2010, 08:39 AM
Lost all credibility when he said injuries weren't a factor.

yea....i kinda find it hard to believe that he was talking to a Raiders coach who was fired and thought it was all about finances...ummm, that whole staff was let go because they BLEW. Also, he is a coach, he knows a Raiders coach and he lived next to a former Denver coach? wow...this guy is way too in the know to not understand how injuries affected this team.

i do agree that there is a schism in the locker room and i think this offseason we will be getting a lot more character guys which will make this board explode..

ant1999e
01-04-2010, 08:41 AM
Lost all credibility when he said injuries weren't a factor.

And this:
"Whether McDaniels became successful or not had nothing to do with it. If he failed, which he has and will, he'll get fired after next season"

tsiguy96
01-04-2010, 08:41 AM
so youll take this guys word over mediators that 6 game is the turning point as far as schematic advantage? gotcha. youre dumb.

orinjkrush
01-04-2010, 08:43 AM
mcdaniels is not getting the best out of his players. probably not out of the assistants.

bad news when half your troops would not go to war with you. or maybe even frag you.

Beantown Bronco
01-04-2010, 08:48 AM
They weren't. Team's have succeeded with far worse injuries. Denver has performed far better on offense with far worse injuries. Any attempt to defend McD based on injuries when it was clear week after week he was being out-coached is just ludicrous.

This is not some strange concept I'm coming up with here. It's not rocket science. Look at the history of the league. The teams that remain healthy make the playoffs and the SB.

Injuries ARE a factor.

Sure, teams can succeed and win some games with injuries. Sure, teams have had far worse injuries than the Broncos had this year. Nobody is denying that. All we're saying is that injuries affected this team this year.

Or are you saying that Hamilton didn't hurt us yesterday? or that Polumbus is as good as Harris? or that Simms is as good as Orton?

TonyR
01-04-2010, 08:50 AM
Interesting, but I have a hard time believing that McD "lost the locker room" after the 6-0 start. So there was more to the decline than internal problems. And while I think money is certainly a factor the Broncos spent plenty in FA last year, and I think when Shanahan was fired Bowlen knew there was a high probability he wouldn't coach this year. Shanahan's motives had nothing to do with screwing Bowlen.

oubronco
01-04-2010, 08:50 AM
saw some anonymous guy posting his thoughts on denverpost.com, and although there's no way to know what's true and what's not, he did bring up some interesting points not really being discussed here. i'll quote him to see what the rest of the OM thinks.



and a little later on the same thread...



the 2 things i find most interesting are:

1) that Shanny sat out a year to spite Bowlen and that they are no longer friends. i can completely see Shanny doing that.

2) that the argument about the league needing 6 games to figure out the new Broncos was silly and that teams starting 6-0 and finishing 8-8 are a clear sign of internal dissension. i honestly buy this argument more than the one that says the league needed 6 games to figure us out. McD's stubborn behavior during the slide sure seems to me to be consistent with a coach trying to impose his will on his team.

I can agree with this

ant1999e
01-04-2010, 08:51 AM
so youll take this guys word over mediators that 6 game is the turning point as far as schematic advantage? gotcha. youre dumb.

You expect different from these guys? They take Hosina Anderson's word on what's going on.

Mediator12
01-04-2010, 08:53 AM
so youll take this guys word over mediators that 6 game is the turning point as far as schematic advantage? gotcha. youre dumb.

1. It is NOT the first 6 games, its the first four. The reason being there is not enough plays on film from the last few years to compare the current scheme with the former scheme and find the differences. The whole 6 game thing is simply made up because DEN went 6-0.....

2. The next big step is after all the bye weeks when coaches have basically rolled out all their arsenal of tricks and tweaks. That occurs around weeks 10-11.

So, that basically means there are 3 phases. Weeks 1-4, Games 4-10, and the final 6 games.

Gort
01-04-2010, 08:55 AM
You expect different from these guys? They take Hosina Anderson's word on what's going on.

strawman.

nobody is taking this guy's word for anything. just an interesting new take on things to discuss... or are we only supposed to debate the following here now:

1) cutler sucks, orton is great
2) orton sucks, cutler is great
3) McD sucks, shanny is great
4) shanny sucks, McD is great
5) hillis sucks, moreno is great
6) moreno sucks, hillis is great

Gort
01-04-2010, 08:58 AM
1. It is NOT the first 6 games, its the first four. The reason being there is not enough plays on film from the last few years to compare the current scheme with the former scheme and find the differences. The whole 6 game thing is simply made up because DEN went 6-0.....

2. The next big step is after all the bye weeks when coaches have basically rolled out all their arsenal of tricks and tweaks. That occurs around weeks 10-11.

So, that basically means there are 3 phases. Weeks 1-4, Games 4-10, and the final 6 games.

weeks 1-4: 4-0
weeks 5-11: 3-3
weeks 12-17: 1-5

so what does that imply?

smoke & mirrors, followed by the true talent of this team, followed by .... (what)? what is behind the 1-5 slide? dissension? injuries? bad luck? something else?

Beantown Bronco
01-04-2010, 09:07 AM
smoke & mirrors, followed by the true talent of this team, followed by .... (what)? what is behind the 1-5 slide? dissension? injuries? bad luck? something else?

Facing the two teams (Indy and Philly) that could very well end up in the SB or at least were playing the best in their respective conferences at the time we played them didn't help.

WolfpackGuy
01-04-2010, 09:10 AM
Interesting read, but I don't think Cutler fiasco was about money at least on Jayby's end.

Now a fair deal of the Marshall situation is ALL about money.

eddie mac
01-04-2010, 09:11 AM
Someone actually reads the posters comments on Denverpost.com??? Who knew???

More importantly why???

That poster is an idiot if he thinks money came into the coaching change. Which new HC got more $$$ than McDaniels this year???

oubronco
01-04-2010, 09:11 AM
weeks 1-4: 4-0
weeks 5-11: 3-3
weeks 12-17: 1-5

so what does that imply?

smoke & mirrors, followed by the true talent of this team, followed by .... (what)? what is behind the 1-5 slide? dissension? injuries? bad luck? something else?

don't forget sh*tty playcalling

gyldenlove
01-04-2010, 09:14 AM
This is not some strange concept I'm coming up with here. It's not rocket science. Look at the history of the league. The teams that remain healthy make the playoffs and the SB.

Injuries ARE a factor.

Sure, teams can succeed and win some games with injuries. Sure, teams have had far worse injuries than the Broncos had this year. Nobody is denying that. All we're saying is that injuries affected this team this year.

Or are you saying that Hamilton didn't hurt us yesterday? or that Polumbus is as good as Harris? or that Simms is as good as Orton?

Injuries weren't a factor in changing 6-0 to a losing streak. We even had a bye week after week 6 so even minor injuries would heal prior to the losing beginning.

Compared to most other years and most other teams we have been remarkably healthy this year so injuries is no excuse for anything, if you expect a football team to go through a season 100% healthy you need a different sport because that will never happen. Last year we put more runningbacks on IR than we have put players on there all year this year.

Hamilton was the starter from the beginning of the year, so how does that have anything to do with injuries?

Did Simms suddenly play in 8 games? he didn't even play 4 quarters all year.

SonOfLe-loLang
01-04-2010, 09:15 AM
The poster is an idiot if he thinks its Shanny's contract that's handcuffing bowlen.

Though i have long believed that Bowlen has no money and his willingness to get rid of cutler was partly financial.

Gort
01-04-2010, 09:19 AM
Someone actually reads the posters comments on Denverpost.com??? Who knew???

More importantly why???

That poster is an idiot if he thinks money came into the coaching change. Which new HC got more $$$ than McDaniels this year???

McD is getting $2M per year.
Spagnulo is getting $2.75M per year in St Louis.
Schwartz is getting $2.75M per year in Detroit.
Caldwell's contract terms are private.

it doesn't appear that McD is getting more than the others...

Steve Prefontaine
01-04-2010, 09:21 AM
Facing the two teams (Indy and Philly) that could very well end up in the SB or at least were playing the best in their respective conferences at the time we played them didn't help.

That is brutal...but I don't think anyone has an issue with Denver losing those games. It's the losses at home to very poor Oakland and KC teams that rounds out that 1-5 slide.

Beantown Bronco
01-04-2010, 09:23 AM
Injuries weren't a factor in changing 6-0 to a losing streak. We even had a bye week after week 6 so even minor injuries would heal prior to the losing beginning.

Sorry. But injuries are always a factor.

Orton's injury in the Skins game contributed DIRECTLY to that loss. This is not really debatable. Unless you think the 0 points and turnovers by Simms in the 2nd half of that game are the same as 17 pts by the offense in the first half under Orton.

And how is going from Harris to Polumbus a lateral move? It's not even close.

Compared to most other years and most other teams we have been remarkably healthy this year so injuries is no excuse for anything, if you expect a football team to go through a season 100% healthy you need a different sport because that will never happen. Last year we put more runningbacks on IR than we have put players on there all year this year.
.

Stop comparing years here. That is a completely different argument. What we are arguing here is solely a 2009 issue. Injuries don't make you a better or even the same team. Period. There's a reason these guys are backups.

Hamilton was the starter from the beginning of the year, so how does that have anything to do with injuries?.

He had to come back in at left guard because of injuries. He was the starter during week one, but he was not the best player at the position by the end of the year. Yet we had to put him back in there because of injuries to the guys ahead of him.

Did Simms suddenly play in 8 games? he didn't even play 4 quarters all year.

He DIRECTLY affected the games he appeared in (Washington and SD). This is not debatable.

TonyR
01-04-2010, 09:24 AM
Injuries weren't a factor in changing 6-0 to a losing streak.

I agree that injuries weren't remotely the major factor, but the Ryan Harris injury did create big problems for the O-line because of the lack of quality depth.

TonyR
01-04-2010, 09:25 AM
McD is getting $2M per year

do you have stats to support the idea that he's paid more than other 1st time head coaches?

It really doesn't matter. Bowlen knew there was a high probability he was on the hook for at least another year of Shanahan's salary. If money were that huge of a concern he would have kept him around for another year.

oubronco
01-04-2010, 09:26 AM
another thing is we lost every game that we faced a team for the second time around

WolfpackGuy
01-04-2010, 09:28 AM
another thing is we lost every game that we faced a team for the second time around

Bodes well for next season when the 3rd and 4th meetings will take place!

More Moreno up the middle for a loss please!

Beantown Bronco
01-04-2010, 09:30 AM
I agree that injuries weren't remotely the major factor, but the Ryan Harris injury did create big problems for the O-line because of the lack of quality depth.

Bingo. That's all I'm saying. One factor in a list of several factors. I'll never understand someone saying that injuries aren't a factor at all. Nobody has backups that are 100% as good as their starters.

oubronco
01-04-2010, 09:30 AM
Bodes well for next season when the 3rd and 4th meetings will take place!

More Moreno up the middle for a loss please!

well when we have better lineman then we'll see

oubronco
01-04-2010, 09:31 AM
Bingo. That's all I'm saying. One factor in a list of several factors. I'll never understand someone saying that injuries aren't a factor at all. Nobody has backups that are 100% as good as their starters.

Injuries are a huge factor

Gort
01-04-2010, 09:32 AM
Sorry. But injuries are always a factor.

Orton's injury in the Skins game contributed DIRECTLY to that loss. This is not really debatable. Unless you think the 0 points and turnovers by Simms in the 2nd half of that game are the same as 17 pts by the offense in the first half under Orton.

And how is going from Harris to Polumbus a lateral move? It's not even close.



Stop comparing years here. That is a completely different argument. What we are arguing here is solely a 2009 issue. Injuries don't make you a better or even the same team. Period. There's a reason these guys are backups.



He had to come back in at left guard because of injuries. He was the starter during week one, but he was not the best player at the position by the end of the year. Yet we had to put him back in there because of injuries to the guys ahead of him.



He DIRECTLY affected the games he appeared in (Washington and SD). This is not debatable.

nice to see that you agree with yourself. if "this is not debatable" is your proof of correctness, why bother posting? i'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing, its just that when you throw out "this is not debatable" as your justification for anything, you sort of lose the argument in my eyes on principle.

Mediator12
01-04-2010, 09:32 AM
There are several points I would like to address from that article:

1. The trend toward hiring younger coaches is absolutely based on finances. I could not agree more. The NFL also saw the median coaches contract decline severely last year, and finances are at the root of Marshall and other big name players not getting big contract extenetions.

2. Anyone who says that Bowlen and Shanahan have not talked since his firing is just guessing. I am pretty sure that is false.

3. Saying that it took 6 games to figure this team out is not reading very well. Also, his point about coaches not figuring out what people are doing early is flat out absurd. Did anyone see how Dominant the Giants were the first 5 games of the season? I would also like to show you the 2005 DEN defense that waited until game 7 of that year to release the cover zero Blitz scheme. It took much longer for teams to adjust to this because it occurred midseason. In fact, it took 9 games for PIT to finally solve it in the AFCC game. It was NOT a common thing in the NFL, just like the Wildcat was not for MIA last year. And, both were wildly successful. You see, it is not just figuring out what teams are doing, its figuring out tendencies and how to stop them as well. It is one thing to know what teams are doing. That is why there is the first four game stage. It is another thing to stop them when you know what they are doing.

The second stage is games 5-10 when teams take a shot at countering what you like to do and force you out of it. Here, being a variable team that can make adjustments on the fly is extremely helpful. This is where the injuries to Orton and Harris came into play. Having to play several teams coming off bye weeks really hurts too. It gives them extra time to implement ways to attack your weakness and find further ways hide their faults schematically and with playcalling. Plus, it gives extra practice reps to players who normally would struggle with that kind of change. It gives time to be more mentally prepared for your opponent, which all NFL teams need. Finally, having players coming off of extra rest helps too. I think DEN was not as variable as they would have liked to be in this part of their run this year.

The final stage of 6 games is when it takes players executing plays that they can win. This is where the rubber meets the road and pretenders are seperated from contenders. This is why DEN has been so damn poor down the stretch the last few years. Shanahan and Coyer had masked so many personnel weaknesses on each side of the ball for so long it finally imploded while trying to make it better. What we saw this year down the stretch is a team that was wildy erratic in its final 6 games. That means several things:

1. Foremost, the roster is not good enough and capable enough to fight down the stretch and constantly win games.

2. It means they were coached up as long as they could be to make a difference, but still could not hold the Raiders and Chiefs from Rushing for 200+ yards on them @ home with the playoffs on the line.

3. It means the players still lack the toughness, desire, and character to play as a team and play strongly when it matters the most.

To me that is not losing the Lockeroom. That is simply not getting enough out of them for some internal reason. Most likely, the internal disputes between Marshall, Scheffler, and others if there are any. The younger players were enough of a distraction that the vets went to the coach to shut them up.

Overall, I would assess these comments as poorly thought out jealousy from a former Coach. I know a lot of veteran NFL coaches expressed a lot of displeasure over the younger guys getting opportunities and the NFL pension plan getting destroyed. The Colts almost lost Tom Moore and Howard Mudd because of such things as hard earned Retirement money and coaching opportunities.

Gort
01-04-2010, 09:36 AM
It really doesn't matter. Bowlen knew there was a high probability he was on the hook for at least another year of Shanahan's salary. If money were that huge of a concern he would have kept him around for another year.

he couldn't keep him. shanny drew a line in the sand that Bowlen couldn't accept. shanny was making decisions as if HE owned it, not Bowlen. shanny was getting $6M per year. signing McD to $2M per year with the hope that shanny would quickly find a job elsewhere did promise to help with Bowlen's finances. remember how petty shanny is/was with Al Davis? that's why it wouldn't suprise me to find out he was doing the same with Bowlen... not necessarily fighting over disputed payments... but surely not rushing to take a job or even offering to negotiate a contract settlement. of course shanny was always interested in getting players to renegotiate. i can believe that Bowlen was in part motivated by the CBA and finances when choosing a rookie HC.

Gort
01-04-2010, 09:43 AM
There are several points I would like to address from that article:

1. The trend toward hiring younger coaches is absolutely based on finances. I could not agree more. The NFL also saw the median coaches contract decline severely last year, and finances are at the root of Marshall and other big name players not getting big contract extenetions.

2. Anyone who says that Bowlen and Shanahan have not talked since his firing is just guessing. I am pretty sure that is false.

3. Saying that it took 6 games to figure this team out is not reading very well. Also, his point about coaches not figuring out what people are doing early is flat out absurd. Did anyone see how Dominant the Giants were the first 5 games of the season? I would also like to show you the 2005 DEN defense that waited until game 7 of that year to release the cover zero Blitz scheme. It took much longer for teams to adjust to this because it occurred midseason. In fact, it took 9 games for PIT to finally solve it in the AFCC game. It was NOT a common thing in the NFL, just like the Wildcat was not for MIA last year. And, both were wildly successful. You see, it is not just figuring out what teams are doing, its figuring out tendencies and how to stop them as well. It is one thing to know what teams are doing. That is why there is the first four game stage. It is another thing to stop them when you know what they are doing.

The second stage is games 5-10 when teams take a shot at countering what you like to do and force you out of it. Here, being a variable team that can make adjustments on the fly is extremely helpful. This is where the injuries to Orton and Harris came into play. Having to play several teams coming off bye weeks really hurts too. It gives them extra time to implement ways to attack your weakness and find further ways hide their faults schematically and with playcalling. Plus, it gives extra practice reps to players who normally would struggle with that kind of change. It gives time to be more mentally prepared for your opponent, which all NFL teams need. Finally, having players coming off of extra rest helps too. I think DEN was not as variable as they would have liked to be in this part of their run this year.

The final stage of 6 games is when it takes players executing plays that they can win. This is where the rubber meets the road and pretenders are seperated from contenders. This is why DEN has been so damn poor down the stretch the last few years. Shanahan and Coyer had masked so many personnel weaknesses on each side of the ball for so long it finally imploded while trying to make it better. What we saw this year down the stretch is a team that was wildy erratic in its final 6 games. That means several things:

1. Foremost, the roster is not good enough and capable enough to fight down the stretch and constantly win games.

2. It means they were coached up as long as they could be to make a difference, but still could not hold the Raiders and Chiefs from Rushing for 200+ yards on them @ home with the playoffs on the line.

3. It means the players still lack the toughness, desire, and character to play as a team and play strongly when it matters the most.

To me that is not losing the Lockeroom. That is simply not getting enough out of them for some internal reason. Most likely, the internal disputes between Marshall, Scheffler, and others if there are any. The younger players were enough of a distraction that the vets went to the coach to shut them up.

Overall, I would assess these comments as poorly thought out jealousy from a former Coach. I know a lot of veteran NFL coaches expressed a lot of displeasure over the younger guys getting opportunities and the NFL pension plan getting destroyed. The Colts almost lost Tom Moore and Howard Mudd because of such things as hard earned Retirement money and coaching opportunities.

that's an interesting response. but for this to truly belong on the OM, you have to:

1) call me or somebody else on this thread an idiot
2) conclude by saying that you're right and everybody else is wrong
3) somehow blame cutler or orton

;)

Taco John
01-04-2010, 09:48 AM
Lost all credibility when he said injuries weren't a factor.


Injuries were a factor? Which ones? It's not like last year where we had to scrape down to the practice squad in order to suit up running backs for a game.

Taco John
01-04-2010, 09:56 AM
Nevermind, I read. I see what you're saying. I don't think injuries were a major factor at all. We had a very healthy team this year compared to what we've experienced.

Mr.Meanie
01-04-2010, 10:09 AM
Successful business men are that for a reason because when it comes down to it, they have become successful based on financial decisions that are in THEIR best interests.


Bowlen probably figured that Shanahan would get another contract after being fired which would negate the rest of Bowlen's contract with him. Shanahan stuck it to Bowlen by sitting out a year.

Wait a second... so this good businessman Bowlen gambled on the idea that someone wouldn't sit back and collect multiple millions of dollars to hang out, play golf, and allow a bidding war to begin for his services?

Flawed premise, flawed post. That seems to be the current theme around these parts.

Beantown Bronco
01-04-2010, 10:10 AM
Nevermind, I read. I see what you're saying. I don't think injuries were a major factor at all. We had a very healthy team this year compared to what we've experienced.

Until tsi guy flapped his gums.... :D

~Crash~
01-04-2010, 10:14 AM
Bodes well for next season when the 3rd and 4th meetings will take place!

More Moreno up the middle for a loss please!

that basic plunge play that takes a rocket scientist ...oh yes more please !

~Crash~
01-04-2010, 10:17 AM
Our D wore down . Way to many snaps

~Crash~
01-04-2010, 10:18 AM
we need big bodies to help out in the middle.

~Crash~
01-04-2010, 10:20 AM
Moss should not be the last player keept it should be Thomas (Who I Like) as a roll player with more snaps at DE .

Beantown Bronco
01-04-2010, 10:20 AM
Our D wore down . Way to many snaps

KC: 60 offensive plays
Den: 80 offensive plays

KC: 27 minutes TOP
Den: 33 minutes TOP

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2010010312/2009/REG17/chiefs@broncos/analyze/box-score

Mediator12
01-04-2010, 10:40 AM
that's an interesting response. but for this to truly belong on the OM, you have to:

1) call me or somebody else on this thread an idiot
2) conclude by saying that you're right and everybody else is wrong
3) somehow blame cutler or orton

;)

I am not completely capable of this, but I aspire to be. Thanks, I'll take that as a complement.

baja
01-04-2010, 12:13 PM
so youll take this guys word over mediators that 6 game is the turning point as far as schematic advantage? gotcha. youre dumb.

I never thought it took 6 games to figure out a particular team that always seemed a ridicules idea.

Pick Six
01-04-2010, 01:44 PM
Our D wore down . Way to many snaps

Our D never took the field, based on KC's first touchdown drive...

Abqbronco
01-04-2010, 02:06 PM
Our D wore down . Way to many snaps

Wore down doing what? Watching Charles run past them?

ghwk
01-04-2010, 02:20 PM
that's an interesting response. but for this to truly belong on the OM, you have to:

1) call me or somebody else on this thread an idiot
2) conclude by saying that you're right and everybody else is wrong
3) somehow blame cutler or orton
4) declare Peyton Hillis the greatest running back EVER

;

Fixed :thanku:

bloodsunday
01-04-2010, 02:21 PM
I'm calling BS on the finances as well. First of all, McDaniel's got 8M. That's not chump change. Secondly, if the end-game is cash, why fire Shanny at all? And finally, name a time that we have wanted to spend some cash and Bowlen has said no. He gave McD free reign to spend money if FA, even with Shanny's huge dead cap allotment.

This change was made for the right reasons... at least as Bowlen sees them.

Mediator12
01-04-2010, 02:46 PM
I'm calling BS on the finances as well. First of all, McDaniel's got 8M. That's not chump change. Secondly, if the end-game is cash, why fire Shanny at all? And finally, name a time that we have wanted to spend some cash and Bowlen has said no. He gave McD free reign to spend money if FA, even with Shanny's huge dead cap allotment.

This change was made for the right reasons... at least as Bowlen sees them.

Your not looking at the big picture. The owners are preparing to recoup a lot of money in an uncapped year. Way too many people Assume that teams are going simply going to overpay to get Elite FA players in an uncapped year. What really is going to happen is that alot of owners are going to make back the losses they gave to players from overpaying the last CBA.

As for the hiring of McDaniels, that was a much more attractive hire than a vet Coach for the bottom line in the upcoming CBA talks. The owners are building an airtight case for the next round of negotiations in order to reduce player payroll. They are starting with the coaches and Front office salaries and benefits, and then they are going to squeeze the rookie Salary structures.

Here is some beneficial reading on this:

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Owners-will-embrace-uncapped-year.html

bloodsunday
01-04-2010, 03:03 PM
Your not looking at the big picture. The owners are preparing to recoup a lot of money in an uncapped year. Way too many people Assume that teams are going simply going to overpay to get Elite FA players in an uncapped year. What really is going to happen is that alot of owners are going to make back the losses they gave to players from overpaying the last CBA.

As for the hiring of McDaniels, that was a much more attractive hire than a vet Coach for the bottom line in the upcoming CBA talks. The owners are building an airtight case for the next round of negotiations in order to reduce player payroll. They are starting with the coaches and Front office salaries and benefits, and then they are going to squeeze the rookie Salary structures.

Here is some beneficial reading on this:

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Owners-will-embrace-uncapped-year.html

This is a great post and I agree with the general premise. That said, I don't believe that Bowlen's hire of McD was strictly over finances, or he's the worst businessman ever (ok exaggerating a bit). He paid a lot of money out in FA last season to remake this roster. He paid 2 HCs, and at least 2 OCs this year, and probably numerous other assistants. He paid signing bonuses to 2 first round picks thanks to the Cutler deal. It would have been financially wiser for Bowlen to wait one more season and playing money ball if ALL he cared about was finances. I have no doubt the owners are looking to tighten the belt, but Bowlen's timing does not suggest that he is putting finances over winning, IMO.

gyldenlove
01-04-2010, 03:15 PM
This is a great post and I agree with the general premise. That said, I don't believe that Bowlen's hire of McD was strictly over finances, or he's the worst businessman ever (ok exaggerating a bit). He paid a lot of money out in FA last season to remake this roster. He paid 2 HCs, and at least 2 OCs this year, and probably numerous other assistants. He paid signing bonuses to 2 first round picks thanks to the Cutler deal. It would have been financially wiser for Bowlen to wait one more season and playing money ball if ALL he cared about was finances. I have no doubt the owners are looking to tighten the belt, but Bowlen's timing does not suggest that he is putting finances over winning, IMO.

He didn't pay that much in FA last year compared to what he got. Dawkins got a 2 year 11 million deal, Goodman got 5 years at 20 million of which he will see 10 million over the first 3 years after which he will be gone anyway. Ron Fields, Andra Davis both signed cheap contracts, Lamont Jordan and Buckhalter are hardly big ticket items either coming in at a few million a year each.

The signing bonus to Ayers (which was the pick we got in the trade) was not much, well under 8 million for a 5 year contract, that is more than offset by unloading Cutler's salary and bonuses.

Bowlen knows that he can't bail on spending money or the fans will punish him, he has to put a competitive team on the field - the cost of a nonsellout blackout would be a lot more than what he spend on free agents.

Consider that we have a lot less money tied up in player salaries and coach salaries combined than any other team in the league for the 2010 season - and we have at least 2 players who we will most likely renegoiate with to take pay cuts. It all started the year before last when we didn't sign big free agents, we brought in a few veterans at minimum or low salaries.

We only paid 1 OC this year, Mike Mccoy. The rule about paying coaches that are terminated only applies to head coaches.

elsid13
01-04-2010, 03:18 PM
Your not looking at the big picture. The owners are preparing to recoup a lot of money in an uncapped year. Way too many people Assume that teams are going simply going to overpay to get Elite FA players in an uncapped year. What really is going to happen is that alot of owners are going to make back the losses they gave to players from overpaying the last CBA.

As for the hiring of McDaniels, that was a much more attractive hire than a vet Coach for the bottom line in the upcoming CBA talks. The owners are building an airtight case for the next round of negotiations in order to reduce player payroll. They are starting with the coaches and Front office salaries and benefits, and then they are going to squeeze the rookie Salary structures.

Here is some beneficial reading on this:

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Owners-will-embrace-uncapped-year.html

I think the other story was unreported is that assistant coaches are losing benefits and retirement plans. ( http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/NFL-coaches-eyeing-college-jobs.html )

The certain owners are looking to cut cost no matter what.

bloodsunday
01-04-2010, 03:31 PM
He didn't pay that much in FA last year compared to what he got. Dawkins got a 2 year 11 million deal, Goodman got 5 years at 20 million of which he will see 10 million over the first 3 years after which he will be gone anyway. Ron Fields, Andra Davis both signed cheap contracts, Lamont Jordan and Buckhalter are hardly big ticket items either coming in at a few million a year each.
All together he shelled out close to 40M. That's a lot of cheese. Yeah he got good talent, and I am thankful for that. But if his only interest were cash, he was better served staying with Shanahan who, as usual, thought we were only 1 or 2 players away from being Super Bowl contenders.


The signing bonus to Ayers (which was the pick we got in the trade) was not much, well under 8 million for a 5 year contract, that is more than offset by unloading Cutler's salary and bonuses.
Yes but if the point is to get a rookie salary cap because of the risks inherent in rookies, then why pay 2 first rounders and move up to get Alfonso Smith?

Consider that we have a lot less money tied up in player salaries and coach salaries combined than any other team in the league for the 2010 season - and we have at least 2 players who we will most likely renegoiate with to take pay cuts. It all started the year before last when we didn't sign big free agents, we brought in a few veterans at minimum or low salaries.
That maybe true for 2010 IF Mike Shanahan gets a job. Keep in mind we may have more than 1 first round pick this year if we tender Marshall and/or Dumervil and let them walk away for compensation.

We only paid 1 OC this year, Mike Mccoy. The rule about paying coaches that are terminated only applies to head coaches.
I am curious to know if this is true. A contract is a contract no matter what level the individual is. My understanding was that one complication of the decision to fire Shanahan and Bates was that Shanahan preferred to give his assistants 2 year deals when the league-norm is 1 (in case they get fired).

Bottom line here is that I don't doubt the economics of the system are changing. I think they need to change. BUT, I just don't want people thinking that somehow Bowlen is putting cash over winning. I don't buy that argument. Pat is a good owner and wants to win. I don't want people buying into the idea that Denver is the NFL equivalent of the LA Clippers.

bendog
01-04-2010, 03:40 PM
Imo mediator is right that you have to look to the financial motives of the owners. As to bowlen individually: you have a young qb with diabetes and he's looking at Rivers/eli money at the close of 2008, and now you have BM who at best is .... of questionable work ethic. Any contract that has a length extending into the new CBA has to be honored. and the owners are determined to bring down both the rookie wage scale (and the union is agreeable) as well as the overall cost of personnel.

The flip side of the Bowlen thing is that he's turning 66 next month. If he sells the team, he's looking at around a 650-700 million taxable event. And the estate tax will hit him at around 45%, unless he should pass unexpectedly before congress returns. He's never been perfect, but I don't think anyone can dispute he's spent a lot of money to compete. (he's also made around 650million in addition to his salary, perks and expenses over the years, but hey so have all the owners) It should become apparant over the next year or two whether he's pinching "pennies" to prepare for an ownership change or whether it's maxing out the cap to put the best product on the field.