PDA

View Full Version : Chaotic first year won't alter Broncos coach McDaniels' approach


Pages : [1] 2

Bronco Rob
03-28-2010, 04:17 AM
Chaotic first year won't alter Broncos coach McDaniels' approach


By Mike Klis
The Denver Post
Posted: 03/28/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT


Call him too young to be coaching the Broncos. Criticize his methods. Question whether he is stubbornly principled to a fault.

But say this for Broncos coach Josh McDaniels: No one can accuse him of playing favorites. Unless, of course, a few players held over from the Mike Shanahan regime do.

During McDaniels' initial whirlwind, tumultuous first season with the Broncos, he let it be known no player is above what he views best for the team. Not the star quarterback. Not the superstar wide receiver. Not the talented tight end.

In going to the extremes of essentially banishing star quarterback Jay Cutler shortly after McDaniels' arrival, and benching standout wide receiver Brandon Marshall from the team's final game, all for the sake of instilling a team-before-self culture, McDaniels quickly became one of the most polarizing coaches to pace a Denver sideline.

Heading into his second year, McDaniels makes it clear he won't change his approach, though he would prefer far less drama. That shouldn't be difficult after a chaotic past 12 months of trades, suspensions, locker-room unrest and a historic on-field collapse.

"In terms of going through adversities, the goal would be to not have to deal with many, if any," said McDaniels, 33. "When there are things that come up that you feel contradict your belief or your message that you've extended to your players, I think you have to react and hold yourself accountable to what you're saying you're all about.

"Or else your words become hollow and they stop listening. If you don't do that, you ask whether you really believe in your own message. And I do."

McDaniels made his point early on when he traded Cutler, igniting a firestorm among fans. Condemnation was muffled into commendation when the Broncos unexpectedly started 6-0. And then, almost as suddenly, the Broncos collapsed, losing eight of their final 10 games — the only team in NFL history to win its first six games but not finish with a winning record.

More controversy erupted when McDaniels benched Marshall and top pass-catching tight end Tony Scheffler for the season finale, an embarrassing 20-point home loss to Kansas City. Neither player is expected back for the 2010 season, leading some to wonder about the wisdom of running off top talent to install your system.

"You can't keep getting rid of good players," said former Broncos tight end Shannon Sharpe, now a network TV analyst. "At some point, it catches up to you. All players are not alike. You can't treat them all the same. Mike (Shanahan) never treated John (Elway) like he did everyone else. Josh needs to realize that. He has a lot to learn about dealing with players."

Sharpe never played for Bill Belichick in New England, where the Joyless Pursuit of Perfection, as it was dubbed during the Patriots' undefeated run in 2007, is considered so severe that individuality is scorned. Even cover-boy star Tom Brady is considered the epitome of the team concept.

In benching Marshall on the Friday before the 2009 season finale, McDaniels preached team concerns but also implied his star receiver was jaking an injury, a tactic rarely used by coaches regarding his own player.

"You don't question a guy's toughness in public," said former Broncos guard Mark Schlereth, now an ESPN analyst. "When you basically say, 'I don't believe Brandon is as hurt as he's pretending to be,' that doesn't sit well in a locker-room envionment. As a player you're thinking, 'When is it going to be me?' "

Broncos owner Pat Bowlen, though, seems fine with the hard-line approach McDaniels brought to Denver. Bowlen is steadfast in his belief he chose the right man not only to coach the Broncos, but, like his predecessor, make all key football decisions.

"He comes from New England seed," Bowlen said. "He uses a lot of the experience he had there. And that doesn't bother me. He wants people to toe the line. He expects his coaches to be working hard. It's not like you have a veteran coach in there who's comfortable with his position and happy with all his staff. You've got a young coach trying to make his mark."

Some struggled to adjust

Change, in any organization, usually means tension. When Bowlen hired McDaniels, the atmosphere at Dove Valley was altered. Shanahan was a feared dictator who nevertheless believed in a locker-room pecking order, where veterans earned freedom.

A similar atmosphere permeates the locker room of the Indianapolis Colts, who won more games this past decade than any other NFL franchise.

"I would agree with that," said Colts kicker Adam Vinatieri, a Super Bowl legend with New England. "In New England, it's a little more strict. More drill instruction. Fear plays a bigger role. Here, it's a little more relaxed."

Some Broncos, especially those who had grown comfortable with Shanahan's style, where disagreements usually were kept private, struggled to adjust.

The first moment of locker-room unrest — hours before the infamous soap opera known as McJaygate exploded — occurred in late February 2009 when McDaniels replaced long snapper Mike Leach with Lonie Paxton. Leach had been a locker-room bond for players on both sides of the ball. Paxton, though, was a bigger, more physical snapper who came from New England. If McDaniels could dump a long snapper who had never made a bad snap for one of his own, the more insecure "Shanahan players" were left to wonder if their days were numbered too.

The impact of former Patriots proved minimal, however. McDaniels brought in six former New England players in year No. 1, all of whom were role players. Wide receiver Jabar Gaffney and guard Russ Hochstein got the most playing time.

Nevertheless, the perceived split of "Shanahan" players and "McDaniels" players metastasized as the season crumbled. Wide receiver Eddie Royal wasn't getting the ball. Running back Peyton Hillis, recently traded, rarely got on the field. And in the end, Marshall and Scheffler weren't permitted to dress out for the season finale.

Veteran cornerback Champ Bailey said there was dissension, but it was a natural byproduct of losing, not who played for whom in the past.

"Nobody's happy when you lose," Bailey said. "There's always pointing fingers, problem here, problem there. Whispering. That's how it goes. You've got to win to have a good locker room. I know how much it means to a coach to have his own guys. But at the same time, it doesn't mean you can't go out there and win that coach over and make him believe you deserve that job."

Defensive end Darrell Reid said personality conflicts invade every locker room. "It doesn't matter if it's McDaniels or Shanahan," he said.

But, he added, talk of a rift between McDaniels players vs. Shanahan players became overblown. He pointed to star pass rusher Elvis Dumervil, star offensive tackle Ryan Clady and Royal as Shanahan holdovers who got along well with their new leader.

"Those three guys show me there is no split," he said.

Broncos tight end Daniel Graham, who played for Belichick early in his career, views McDaniels as a coach who is accessible to players, whereas players in New England weren't nearly as comfortable approaching their boss. "What everyone sees on TV with Belichick is what we (players) get. But Josh, he's approachable. Other than that, their philosophies . . . I mean, he learned from Coach Belichick. Everything we've done (here) was like we were in New England."

Broncos safety Brian Dawkins said he found McDaniels willing to talk through issues, but added some players aren't secure enough to question authority or know how to work through problems.

"If you're young, or things aren't handled the way you've been through before, you make a mistake. In this business, you need to hash it out with that individual. And then you move forward," Dawkins said. "It's not that I won't have disagreements with Josh. But those disagreements better be between you and that person . . . and nobody else will know about it."

Former NFL quarterback Boomer Esiason, now a network TV analyst, said nothing helps a coach get his players to buy in better than winning, but that's something former New England assistants have struggled to do on their own.

"All these (coaches) are taking what Bill did in New England and trying to bring that with them wherever they go," Esiason said. "The one thing they're missing, though, is the credibility Bill Belichick has. The Super Bowl rings lead the players to believe he's leading them to victory."

"Have to have thick skin"

To get his team to perform under pressure, McDaniels asks his players to be tough mentally. And that means being able to handle criticism.

After New England won its third Super Bowl in four years at the end of the 2004 season, Charlie Weis left as the Patriots' offensive coordinator to become head coach at Notre Dame. McDaniels was promoted from defensive assistant to essentially Weis' replacement as offensive coordinator, although he was given the title of quarterbacks coach.

So what happened in McDaniels' first season of coaching Brady, the league's best quarterback? The two went three weeks without speaking to each other. Brady went on to have a Pro Bowl season, and the Patriots made the playoffs. And, two years later, McDaniels, by then officially promoted to offensive coordinator, helped Brady set an NFL record with 50 touchdown passes in a season.

Clearly, McDaniels and Brady got past their spat.

"You have to have thick skin," McDaniels said. "Charlie Weis was as good of a mentor and friend to me as I could have asked for. But at the same time, if my skin wasn't thick, he would have crushed me. That's not what I'm trying to do when I get animated. But I guess I don't react well in terms of trying to hold in whatever my emotions are telling me to do. I let it out.

"A lot of people like that. Other people may not. A lot of that has to do with whether you win or lose."

Besides his public squabbles with Cutler, Marshall and Scheffler, Mc-Daniels was caught chastising special-teams coordinator Mike Priefer on the sideline and delivering an obscenity-laced tirade to his penalty-riddled offense while a national cable network was asleep at the bleep switch. He also engaged in a pregame trash-talking episode with Shaun Phillips, the loudmouth linebacker of the San Diego Chargers.

He said he has one regret — exchanging trash talk with Phillips, whom he told, "When I was with New England, we owned you!"

"The Shaun Phillips thing I wish never happened," McDaniels said. "I could have avoided responding. I'll learn from that."

Bowlen believes as McDaniels gains more experience, he will do a better job straddling the line between zeal and commotion.

"He had never been a head coach," Bowlen said. "I think one year's experience is going to significantly help him in the way he deals with a lot of different things, including staff, including the press, including the public."

Beneath McDaniels' infectious optimism is a realism of having learned hard lessons in his first go-round.

"When you're in your second year, you're making better-educated decisions that are going to narrow in on improving the team in areas you know you have to improve," he said.

In his second offseason, McDaniels demonstrated an ability to learn from self-critique. While a likely trade involving Marshall continues to hover, it hasn't stirred nearly the contempt that swirled around McJaygate. Meanwhile, McDaniels and general manager Brian Xanders dramatically addressed a defensive line that had become porous by season's end. Jamal Williams, Justin Bannan and Jarvis Green, all proven productive players from perennial playoff contending teams, comprise the new front three. The Broncos further excited their followers by acquiring well-known quarterback Brady Quinn, who figures to push Kyle Orton for the starting job.

As for McDaniels' fiery personality and passion for coaching, that's not about to change. Fine by Broncos chief executive officer Joe Ellis, who played a key role in recommending the hiring of McDaniels to Bowlen.

"Josh expects and demands a lot," Ellis said. "His belief and need for team and the team concept, he's not going to waver from that. In the interview process, that gave him a leg up on other candidates.

"With Josh, you're either in or you're out. And if you're in, I think you're headed for success."

The Broncos will find out in time. It's on to Year 2.




http://www.denverpost.com/premium/broncos/ci_14771867

Dr. Broncenstein
03-28-2010, 04:30 AM
"I made things unnecessarily difficult by causing personel problems in areas that lacked personel problems."

Paladin
03-28-2010, 07:25 AM
And some players just couldn't do the "Team First" thing.

The continual Josh bashing is just old, and rather pointless.

Dr. Broncenstein
03-28-2010, 08:17 AM
Oh right... you can't be a Bronco fan if you disagree with the decision making of a first time head coach. That is an equally tired cliche.

The rediculous spectacle he put on after a meaningless regular season win over the Pats... that was exactly the type of behavior you would expect from a professional above reproach. Go Denver Joshes.

HAT
03-28-2010, 09:48 AM
So stoked this guy ended up in Denver. Bowlen got it right big time. :thumbs:

gyldenlove
03-28-2010, 10:05 AM
So aside from changing his approach to the draft and the offseason workouts he is not changing anything is what the title should have said I guess.

azbroncfan
03-28-2010, 10:21 AM
Why would he change now. That has been a problem past several years is no system stability.

baja
03-28-2010, 10:25 AM
Pat Bowlen - "He comes from New England seed," Bowlen said. "He uses a lot of the experience he had there. And that doesn't bother me. He wants people to toe the line. He expects his coaches to be working hard. It's not like you have a veteran coach in there who's comfortable with his position and happy with all his staff. You've got a young coach trying to make his mark."

Now there is a telling statement..

Tombstone RJ
03-28-2010, 10:27 AM
So aside from changing his approach to the draft and the offseason workouts he is not changing anything is what the title should have said I guess.

Wow your dense. McD is keeping his team first philosophy but he's growing as a HC. He's learning from his mistakes. He's getting better.

Archer81
03-28-2010, 11:10 AM
Klis should fact check. Minnesota was the first team to go 6-0 and not make the playoffs...


:Broncos:

strafen
03-28-2010, 11:15 AM
"I made things unnecessarily difficult by causing personel problems in areas that lacked personel problems."Word!

strafen
03-28-2010, 11:18 AM
So stoked this guy ended up in Denver. Bowlen got it right big time. :thumbs:

He hasn't proven anything yet, other than speaking a pretty line.
All he's done is say the right things ever since he became a head coach.
All I'm waiting for is...
Show me!
I want to see what he's got, 'cause I haven't seen it yet, have you?

TonyR
03-28-2010, 11:22 AM
"I made things unnecessarily difficult by causing personel problems in areas that lacked personel problems."

Where is this quote from? I don't see it in the article.

baja
03-28-2010, 11:26 AM
Where is this quote from? I don't see it in the article.

That one belongs to Doc.

CEH
03-28-2010, 11:29 AM
Klis should fact check. Minnesota was the first team to go 6-0 and not make the playoffs...


Not what the quote says.

the only team in NFL history to win its first six games but not finish with a winning record.

Minny ended up 9-7.

Granted there stil may be a team that started 6-0 and did not finish
above .500

Tombstone RJ
03-28-2010, 11:31 AM
Not what the quote says.

the only team in NFL history to win its first six games but not finish with a winning record.

Minny ended up 9-7.

Granted there stil may be a team that started 6-0 and did not finish
above .500

Worthless statistic. Flip side, the Broncos didn't finish with a losing record either. So what?

The power of worthless stats is amazing.

Popps
03-28-2010, 11:38 AM
So stoked this guy ended up in Denver. Bowlen got it right big time. :thumbs:

No question. Definitely an exciting time to be a fan. Absolutely can't want to see him put his team together and his systems further in place.

Just like with Shanahan, Broncos fans will eventually be blessing Bowlen for bringing him in. It'll just take a little time.

CEH
03-28-2010, 11:39 AM
Worthless statistic. Flip side, the Broncos didn't finish with a losing record either. So what?

The power of worthless stats is amazing.

Right or wrong my comment was to address the stat and whether it was correct or incorrect.

I did not apply an opinion to the stat yet everyone is quick to say if you are not Pro Broncos you are Anti Broncos. I comment was neither just trying to set the record straight

strafen
03-28-2010, 11:44 AM
No question. Definitely an exciting time to be a fan. Absolutely can't want to see him put his team together and his systems further in place.

Just like with Shanahan, Broncos fans will eventually be blessing Bowlen for bringing him in. It'll just take a little time.QFT
QFT= Quoted for the Future.
The kiss of death by popps has been bestowed upon McD... :~ohyah!:

~Crash~
03-28-2010, 11:46 AM
Right or wrong my comment was to address the stat and whether it was correct or incorrect.

I did not apply an opinion to the stat yet everyone is quick to say if you are not Pro Broncos you are Anti Broncos. I comment was neither just trying to set the record straight

CEH is as good as it gets stats wise and in genral IFO so you guys are really digging holes .:notworthy

Borks147
03-28-2010, 11:52 AM
Klis should fact check. Minnesota was the first team to go 6-0 and not make the playoffs...


:Broncos:

Klis said the 2009 Broncos were the first 6-0 team to not finish with a winning record, which is correct since the 2003 Vikings started 6-0 but finished 9-7 and out of the playoffs.

yes, fact checking is important

Paladin
03-28-2010, 11:53 AM
Oh right... you can't be a Bronco fan if you disagree with the decision making of a first time head coach. That is an equally tired cliche.

The rediculous spectacle he put on after a meaningless regular season win over the Pats... that was exactly the type of behavior you would expect from a professional above reproach. Go Denver Joshes.

Bull Shyte, Doc. You are reacting to something I didn't say, one of your best deflective tactics since your "quote" doesn't appear in the article, either. I'll bet the first nurse you nailed led to a fist pump......

:deadhorse

Broncomutt
03-28-2010, 11:57 AM
Right or wrong my comment was to address the stat and whether it was correct or incorrect.

I did not apply an opinion to the stat yet everyone is quick to say if you are not Pro Broncos you are Anti Broncos. I comment was neither just trying to set the record straight

Funny how all you did was correct an inaccurate statement by sirhcyennek81, but it was your post people find worthless.

Klis should fact check.

:Broncos:

Hilarious!

baja
03-28-2010, 11:59 AM
Bull Shyte, Doc. You are reacting to something I didn't say, one of your best deflective tactics since your "quote" doesn't appear in the article, either. I'll bet the first nurse you nailed led to a fist pump......

:deadhorse

Unless it was a male nurse....






Then it would be just fisting.

Dagmar
03-28-2010, 12:20 PM
Oh for ****s sake. Dragster is back.

http://passionateaboutblogging.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/suicide.png

broncofan7
03-28-2010, 12:22 PM
It is known that I have given McGenius a harder time than most on this board--but I really like what he has done so far this off-season. If he avoids trading Marshall for less than his value--a first AND another pick or player--then I will be completely satifisfied by his non draft day off-season activities. The DL players acquirred may be a little long in the tooth--but since they are being asked to be rotational players only--I have a very good feeling about them. I also like the trade for Quinn who gives us a 1a to Orton with more mobility.



I want us to draft an impact player at spot #11--Jerry Hughes or CJ Spiller--I realize that our 1st two picks went for RB and OLB/DE last year--but Spiller and Hughes have the potential to be the game changers that we know Moreno and Ayers are not. Heck, I have MANY reservations about DEZ Bryant's personal issues, but if you pair him with BMarsh--wow--we'd have an elite WR corp immediately.



In summary, McD has had a great off-season: he seems to have grown a little by admitting to at least one of his mistakes publicly(Oral spat with SD LB)--the trading for B Quinn is an admission that he realizes Orton doesn't have 'it' (reassuring to me as well)and if he keeps Marshall and adds another dynamic player at the #11, we will be poised to win 10+ games next year. This year really is make or break for MCD and I am ready to support him 110% as long as he does not trade B Marsh for less than a #1 and a player or pick. Cannot wait to see our schedule and draft!

Dagmar
03-28-2010, 12:26 PM
Oh.
Dear.
Lord.

elsid13
03-28-2010, 12:32 PM
"So what happened in McDaniels' first season of coaching Brady, the league's best quarterback? The two went three weeks without speaking to each other."

McDaniels must of told Brady that he was going to move Cassell up to number one on depth chart.

strafen
03-28-2010, 12:45 PM
Where is this quote from? I don't see it in the article.http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=90335

HEAV
03-28-2010, 12:51 PM
Brady went on to have a Pro Bowl season, and the Patriots made the playoffs. And, two years later, McDaniels, by then officially promoted to offensive coordinator, helped Brady set an NFL record with 50 touchdown passes in a season.

Clearly, McDaniels and Brady got past their spat.

Dagmar
03-28-2010, 01:02 PM
Brady went on to have a Pro Bowl season, and the Patriots made the playoffs. And, two years later, McDaniels, by then officially promoted to offensive coordinator, helped Brady set an NFL record with 50 touchdown passes in a season.

Clearly, McDaniels and Brady got past their spat.

For those that choose to HATE.

elsid13
03-28-2010, 01:11 PM
You don't think it usually when the OC/QB coach doesn't talk to his starting QB for 3 weeks? If Belicheat wasn't there and didn't have such strong control over that team, it could of been a disaster for NE. I have said before and continue to believe that McDaniels is very stubborn guy that holds very strong opinions and going to need to learn as leader there is time when you have to give a little and not be such a hard ass.

Dagmar
03-28-2010, 01:17 PM
You don't think it usually when the OC/QB coach doesn't talk to his starting QB for 3 weeks? If Belicheat wasn't there and didn't have such strong control over that team, it could of been a disaster for NE. I have said before and continue to believe that McDaniels is very stubborn guy that holds very strong opinions and going to need to learn as leader there is time when you have to give a little and not be such a hard ass.

"In terms of going through adversities, the goal would be to not have to deal with many, if any," said McDaniels, 33. "When there are things that come up that you feel contradict your belief or your message that you've extended to your players, I think you have to react and hold yourself accountable to what you're saying you're all about.

"Or else your words become hollow and they stop listening. If you don't do that, you ask whether you really believe in your own message. And I do."

I believe in this guy. I am not one of those people on here that believes he knows better than the coach. Than any coach in the NFL. We ain't coaches. We are posting on a net message board because we love the Broncos.

KipCorrington25
03-28-2010, 01:39 PM
Worthless statistic. Flip side, the Broncos didn't finish with a losing record either. So what?

The power of worthless stats is amazing.

It didn't seem so worthless when Oak and KC were crushing us at home.

broncofan7
03-28-2010, 02:20 PM
It didn't seem so worthless when Oak and KC were crushing us at home.

To be fair, OAK crushed us in Denver in 2008 not last year. They snuck by us last yr--thanks Alphonso.

Dagmar
03-28-2010, 02:25 PM
Anyone else nostalgic for the glorious couple of weeks when dragster and bf7 were banned. Sigh...

broncofan7
03-28-2010, 02:27 PM
Anyone else nostalgic for the glorious couple of weeks when dragster and bf7 were banned. Sigh...

Facts cannot be banned sir......

Dagmar
03-28-2010, 02:34 PM
Nor ****ing **** stirring douchebags either apparently. For long at least.

broncofan7
03-28-2010, 02:38 PM
Nor ****ing **** stirring douchebags either apparently. For long at least.

Go back to your $12/hour job before your mother discovers you are using her internet account again....

there is no '**** stirring' in my posts---if you had the intelligence of even a single celled bacteria you'd realize that--but your prejudices get the best of you--but that's who and what you are--simply average.

tsiguy96
03-28-2010, 02:45 PM
we got dragster AND bf7 back :(

Pseudofool
03-28-2010, 03:41 PM
Spiller and Hughes have the potential to be the game changers that we know Moreno and Ayers are not.Little soon to say that with such bravado, don't you think?

tsiguy96
03-28-2010, 03:50 PM
Little soon to say that with such bravado, don't you think?

if we were to reverse the years, his quotes would go something like this:

Originally Posted by broncofan7
Moreno and Ayers have the potential to be the game changers that we know Spiller and Hughes are not.

crazy, but its how these people work.

TonyR
03-28-2010, 03:57 PM
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=90335

Should I see the quote in that link? If so, I don't.

Pseudofool
03-28-2010, 06:39 PM
crazy, but its how these people work.Maybe we're too "average" to get the profundity.

BroncoBuff
03-28-2010, 09:09 PM
"You can't keep getting rid of good players," said former Broncos tight end Shannon Sharpe, now a network TV analyst. "At some point, it catches up to you. All players are not alike. You can't treat them all the same. Mike (Shanahan) never treated John (Elway) like he did everyone else. Josh needs to realize that. He has a lot to learn about dealing with players."

This is similar to what I've been saying ... some players are more important than others.

And I also agree with Shannon that if we keep trading established young contributors for draft picks, we're gonna have holes and we might suck for awhile. Maybe too long for Josh to succeed. That's the twist here ... if we off Cutler, Marshall and Scheffler for draft picks, there's 1) the crapshoot of whether those picks will ever pan out as well as the player, and 2) the time lag between the trade date and the date when finally the pick can contribute That might be two, three years. And if we suck in the interim, these trades might eventually cost Josh his job.

Kaylore
03-28-2010, 09:57 PM
Now there is a telling statement..

Yeah that jumped out at me. I think the nepotism was out of control. Its to be expected to some degree b/c coaches want guys around them they're familiar with, but it was bad at the end of '08.

montrose
03-28-2010, 09:59 PM
This is similar to what I've been saying ... some players are more important than others.

The thing is Casey; right, wrong or indifferent - Josh McDaniels career in Denver will flourish or go down in flames based on the opposite belief.

53 Men Strong - not one player, not one, is more important than another. It may work, it may not - but I value the integrity of the approach. That's why, regardless of how his career shapes in Denver. I will always be a Josh McDaniels fan. I have no #2 team, my philoshopy has always been that I love one team and hate the other 31 but if Josh McDaniels ever finds himself to be a HC of another team - they will become my #2.

baja
03-28-2010, 10:06 PM
He'll be in Denver many years Montrose Bank it.

HAT
03-28-2010, 10:35 PM
I want to see what he's got, 'cause I haven't seen it yet, have you?

Yes....Yes I have.

HAT
03-28-2010, 10:44 PM
Facts cannot be banned sir......

http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t106/the_hat_album/TheOrangeMane-aDenverBroncosFanComm.png

strafen
03-28-2010, 11:18 PM
This is similar to what I've been saying ... some players are more important than others.

And I also agree with Shannon that if we keep trading established young contributors for draft picks, we're gonna have holes and we might suck for awhile. Maybe too long for Josh to succeed. That's the twist here ... if we off Cutler, Marshall and Scheffler for draft picks, there's 1) the crapshoot of whether those picks will ever pan out as well as the player, and 2) the time lag between the trade date and the date when finally the pick can contribute That might be two, three years. And if we suck in the interim, these trades might eventually cost Josh his job.

I agree.
This team is getting old by the FA signing we're bringing in hopes we win now.
If that doesn't happen, then, there will be even more holes to fill up, and as you've said, the draft picks may or may not pan out. This is a high risk approach by Mcd and he better be right!
This year will determine if McD is going onto the hot seat next season.
We must make the play-offs this year.

SoCalBronco
03-28-2010, 11:20 PM
The thing is Casey; right, wrong or indifferent - Josh McDaniels career in Denver will flourish or go down in flames based on the opposite belief.

53 Men Strong - not one player, not one, is more important than another. It may work, it may not - but I value the integrity of the approach. That's why, regardless of how his career shapes in Denver. I will always be a Josh McDaniels fan. I have no #2 team, my philoshopy has always been that I love one team and hate the other 31 but if Josh McDaniels ever finds himself to be a HC of another team - they will become my #2.

No player is more important than another? Why would we then get rid of a perfectly good longsnapper for a more expensive one simply because he came from New England? Let's not pretend that the staff doesn't play favorites and let's not hide behind this "53 Men Strong" nonsense. Like any coaching staff...this one has its favorites and its disfavored group. Nothing inherently good or bad about it. I'm neither praising or criticizing it because its commonplace. But it is there. At the end of the day I don't care which approach they use, even if it really is a "53 Men Strong" approach. The only thing that counts is results. Period.

montrose
03-28-2010, 11:55 PM
No player is more important than another? Why would we then get rid of a perfectly good longsnapper for a more expensive one simply because he came from New England? Let's not pretend that the staff doesn't play favorites and let's not hide behind this "53 Men Strong" nonsense. Like any coaching staff...this one has its favorites and its disfavored group. Nothing inherently good or bad about it. I'm neither praising or criticizing it because its commonplace. But it is there. At the end of the day I don't care which approach they use, even if it really is a "53 Men Strong" approach. The only thing that counts is results. Period.

Well Mike I agree that results are the most important part, but it certainly appears to me the Broncos have gone with the 53 men-strong approach. I actually believe it is the primary reason Josh McDaniels was hired as the HC of the Broncos and Brian Xanders as the team's GM. Other than Jay Cutler being traded, the Xanders/McDaniels regime's most disputed move may have been the Alphonso Smith trade. How did the team show favortism to Smith? They replaced him with Ty Law and later Rookie FA Tony Carter all knowing the backlash it would cause - looking very badly on them. Why? Because Smith is no more important on the roster than Carter, or Brandon Marshall or Mitch Berger or Le Kevin Smith. They are all Denver Broncos players, 53 of them make up a roster and all 53 are subordinate to every member of the Denver Broncos coaching staff.

strafen
03-29-2010, 12:00 AM
Well Mike I agree that results are the most important part, but it certainly appears to me the Broncos have gone with the 53 men-strong approach. I actually believe it is the primary reason Josh McDaniels was hired as the HC of the Broncos and Brian Xanders as the team's GM. Other than Jay Cutler being traded, the Xanders/McDaniels regime's most disputed move may have been the Alphonso Smith trade. How did the team show favortism to Smith? They replaced him with Ty Law and later Rookie FA Tony Carter all knowing the backlash it would cause - looking very badly on them. Why? Because Smith is no more important on the roster than Carter, or Brandon Marshall or Mitch Berger or Le Kevin Smith. They are all Denver Broncos players, 53 of them make up a roster and all 53 are subordinate to every member of the Denver Broncos coaching staff.Yup. That's why talent doesn't figure to be one of Mcd biggest concerns...

Blueflame
03-29-2010, 12:04 AM
Well Mike I agree that results are the most important part, but it certainly appears to me the Broncos have gone with the 53 men-strong approach. I actually believe it is the primary reason Josh McDaniels was hired as the HC of the Broncos and Brian Xanders as the team's GM. Other than Jay Cutler being traded, the Xanders/McDaniels regime's most disputed move may have been the Alphonso Smith trade. How did the team show favortism to Smith? They replaced him with Ty Law and later Rookie FA Tony Carter all knowing the backlash it would cause - looking very badly on them. Why? Because Smith is no more important on the roster than Carter, or Brandon Marshall or Mitch Berger or Le Kevin Smith. They are all Denver Broncos players, 53 of them make up a roster and all 53 are subordinate to every member of the Denver Broncos coaching staff.

"Results" like the last game of the 2009 season? God that was embarrassing....

Dagmar
03-29-2010, 12:07 AM
http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t106/the_hat_album/TheOrangeMane-aDenverBroncosFanComm.png

Dude, he got himself banned being on the site for a day! He's gone. Get rid of dragster and this place becomes pleasant again!

Dagmar
03-29-2010, 12:08 AM
"Results" like the last game of the 2009 season? God that was embarrassing....

As embarrassing as being torn to shreds by San Diego.

Blueflame
03-29-2010, 12:21 AM
As embarrassing as being torn to shreds by San Diego.

Unlike the '09 Chefs, the '08 Bolts were at least a quality team.... so yeah, it was far more embarrassing to be beaten at home by the '09 Chefs. I really hate it that that pathetic home loss is our most recent football memory of the long, tedious offseason. You'd like to forget it, but unfortunately there's no chance of winning anytime soon to take the foul taste of losing to a bottom-feeder away.

strafen
03-29-2010, 12:23 AM
Unlike the '09 Chefs, the '08 Bolts were at least a quality team.... so yeah, it was far more embarrassing to be beaten at home by the '09 Chefs. I really hate it that that pathetic home loss is our most recent football memory of the long, tedious offseason. You'd like to forget it, but unfortunately there's no chance of winning anytime soon to take the foul taste of losing to a bottom-feeder away.Owned! :rofl:

bpc
03-29-2010, 12:34 AM
Yeah that jumped out at me. I think the nepotism was out of control. Its to be expected to some degree b/c coaches want guys around them they're familiar with, but it was bad at the end of '08.

Meanwhile, Josh's brother with high school experience and coffee mug balancing will be coaching our QB's next year. Ha ha. The hypocrisy on this forum is astounding.

Popps
03-29-2010, 12:53 AM
No player is more important than another? Why would we then get rid of a perfectly good longsnapper for a more expensive one simply because he came from New England? .

Because you like the other guy better. He serves a purpose. Perhaps more than you understand.

It's a ****ing long-snapper.

Douche yourself... get cleaned up, and get over it.

Blueflame
03-29-2010, 01:01 AM
Because you like the other guy better. He serves a purpose. Perhaps more than you understand.

It's a ****ing long-snapper.

Douche yourself... get cleaned up, and get over it.

Popps... perhaps you missed these little details (from the thread starter post)

"The first moment of locker-room unrest — hours before the infamous soap opera known as McJaygate exploded — occurred in late February 2009 when McDaniels replaced long snapper Mike Leach with Lonie Paxton. Leach had been a locker-room bond for players on both sides of the ball. Paxton, though, was a bigger, more physical snapper who came from New England. If McDaniels could dump a long snapper who had never made a bad snap for one of his own, the more insecure "Shanahan players" were left to wonder if their days were numbered too."

Requiem
03-29-2010, 01:05 AM
All I can hope is that McDaniels learns from some of his mistakes, grows in the process, and becomes even better at the things he already does well in order to help get this team in contention ASAP. Win, win, win.

strafen
03-29-2010, 01:23 AM
Popps... perhaps you missed these little details (from the thread starter post)

"The first moment of locker-room unrest — hours before the infamous soap opera known as McJaygate exploded — occurred in late February 2009 when McDaniels replaced long snapper Mike Leach with Lonie Paxton. Leach had been a locker-room bond for players on both sides of the ball. Paxton, though, was a bigger, more physical snapper who came from New England. If McDaniels could dump a long snapper who had never made a bad snap for one of his own, the more insecure "Shanahan players" were left to wonder if their days were numbered too."

And that's exactly why there was mistrust in the locker room.
How can they trust the new headcoach that pulls that kind of crap?

Blueflame
03-29-2010, 02:19 AM
And that's exactly why there was mistrust in the locker room.
How can they trust the new headcoach that pulls that kind of crap?

It would work if he were a veteran, established HC. But he was a rookie.... so of course questions came up.

Florida_Bronco
03-29-2010, 03:42 AM
Unlike the '09 Chefs, the '08 Bolts were at least a quality team.... so yeah, it was far more embarrassing to be beaten at home by the '09 Chefs. I really hate it that that pathetic home loss is our most recent football memory of the long, tedious offseason. You'd like to forget it, but unfortunately there's no chance of winning anytime soon to take the foul taste of losing to a bottom-feeder away.

I don't remember all this doom and gloom from you when the Raiders walked into Mile High and kicked our ass in 2008.

Meanwhile, Josh's brother with high school experience and coffee mug balancing will be coaching our QB's next year. Ha ha. The hypocrisy on this forum is astounding.

You are such a worthless, dishonest little b**** these days.

It's been explained to you (repeatedly) that Ben is simply an addition to the QB coaching platoon. McDaniels and McCoy will still be involved in working with the quarterbacks just like last year, now they'll just a third man to help divide up responsibilities.

And that's exactly why there was mistrust in the locker room.
How can they trust the new headcoach that pulls that kind of crap?

Ummm... the more insecure "Shanahan players" were left to wonder if their days were numbered too."

Just another testament to the mentally weak team Shanahan had fostered.

TonyR
03-29-2010, 07:05 AM
This is similar to what I've been saying ... some players are more important than others.


I somewhat agree, but take note of the player Shannon used as his example and then name a player on the Broncos who deserves that sort of "special treatment."

Paladin
03-29-2010, 08:08 AM
This message is hidden because broncofan7 is on your ignore list (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/profile.php?do=ignorelist).

This message is hidden because dragster69 is on your ignore list (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/profile.php?do=ignorelist).

Pseudofool
03-29-2010, 08:35 AM
Sure, it's possible that McDaniel's team-first approach is just a cover for his egoism/nepotism, but that's an awfully cynical point of view (a bad fan?), to which evidence can never lend any credence. It's one of those superphilosophies, where fans see every so called team-first move as another brick in Josh's house of megalomania.

I agree with monstrose in that I really like Josh, not because of the results, and not because of the pollyanneish team-first approach, but because of his continual ability to persuasively and thoroughly articulate that approach. I'm convinced the guy is genuine. The Haters, esp. the smart peeps, need to listen to that hour long interview Josh gave a week or so ago. There's a lot merit in the man; it's a shame so many Bronco fans refuse to see it.

Pseudofool
03-29-2010, 08:37 AM
This message is hidden because broncofan7 is on your ignore list (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/profile.php?do=ignorelist).

This message is hidden because dragster69 is on your ignore list (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/profile.php?do=ignorelist).

You know you've clicked "View Post" a time or two. Admit it.

Isn't there a Firefox app that allows you to scrub posters entirely from your browser?

jonny1
03-29-2010, 11:49 AM
I don't remember all this doom and gloom from you when the Raiders walked into Mile High and kicked our ass in 2008.



You are such a worthless, dishonest little b**** these days.

It's been explained to you (repeatedly) that Ben is simply an addition to the QB coaching platoon. McDaniels and McCoy will still be involved in working with the quarterbacks just like last year, now they'll just a third man to help divide up responsibilities.



Ummm...

Just another testament to the mentally weak team Shanahan had fostered.


As opposed to the mentally strong team that ended last year on such a high note?

Just sayin . . . .

montrose
03-29-2010, 12:11 PM
Yup. That's why talent doesn't figure to be one of Mcd biggest concerns...

I would disagree, I think Xanders making moves to upgrade the #2 QB position and the DL shows they value talent - just not at the expense of locker room chemistry.

"Results" like the last game of the 2009 season? God that was embarrassing....

That was an awful game, I was there. But there have been numerous embarrassing moments this franchise has undergone in the past decade - to make them exclusive to just last season would be shortsighted.

Owned! :rofl:

Are you happy our team lost? Aren't we all Broncos fans that want our team to win? I know I was gone from the Mane for a while but it almost seems like people are taking satisfaction in our team losing because it proves their point. I really hope that's not the case.

Rohirrim
03-29-2010, 01:09 PM
This is all I needed to read:

Meanwhile, McDaniels and general manager Brian Xanders dramatically addressed a defensive line that had become porous by season's end. Jamal Williams, Justin Bannan and Jarvis Green, all proven productive players from perennial playoff contending teams, comprise the new front three.

Something that Shanahan couldn't seem to get his head around for ten years, McD gets it after one year. Let's get moving. ;D

Drek
03-29-2010, 01:35 PM
This is similar to what I've been saying ... some players are more important than others.

And I also agree with Shannon that if we keep trading established young contributors for draft picks, we're gonna have holes and we might suck for awhile. Maybe too long for Josh to succeed. That's the twist here ... if we off Cutler, Marshall and Scheffler for draft picks, there's 1) the crapshoot of whether those picks will ever pan out as well as the player, and 2) the time lag between the trade date and the date when finally the pick can contribute That might be two, three years. And if we suck in the interim, these trades might eventually cost Josh his job.
Marshall is an elite talent, but there is a ton of baggage there. Do we give special treatment to him by handing over $30M and watching him get suspended for a season with his next screw up?

I've always been a defender of Marshall's on here. I really love how the guy plays football on Sundays. But there is no way you can defend giving him the extension he wants as a smart move for the team, and there is no way he'll stop being a pain in the ass unless you do.

Its the proverbial rock and a hard place situation. The Broncos still have leverage in being able to make him play for $2.5M next year, but that leverage will evaporate soon and there isn't any reason to believe Marshall's issues will do the same.

You can't blame the team for being in that kind of jam when it comes to a talented but difficult player.

As for Cutler, he's got a lot of potential, but he played like **** last year and down the stretch in '08. He isn't an established anything at this point. On top of that, he's the one who pushed is way out of Denver. So what was the team supposed to do, hang onto an unproven player throwing a fit when they could instead get a different young QB with a better attitude and a fistful of picks?

Scheffler? He embodies the type of player "team first" clubs boot out the door ASAP. Middling, one dimensional talents who tease you with potential while acting like clowns. Good riddance.

The next elite talent to leave this team will be the first under McDaniels, and that will likely be Marshall, who like I said has other issues.

No player is more important than another? Why would we then get rid of a perfectly good longsnapper for a more expensive one simply because he came from New England? Let's not pretend that the staff doesn't play favorites and let's not hide behind this "53 Men Strong" nonsense. Like any coaching staff...this one has its favorites and its disfavored group. Nothing inherently good or bad about it. I'm neither praising or criticizing it because its commonplace. But it is there. At the end of the day I don't care which approach they use, even if it really is a "53 Men Strong" approach. The only thing that counts is results. Period.

He paid a $250K premium to get a long snapper he knew already bought into that philosophy and would help install it in the locker room. He didn't know who Mike Leach was and if he would be the kind of locker room soldier Paxton obviously was. So for a $250K premium how is that not worth it?

"Results" like the last game of the 2009 season? God that was embarrassing....

The team failed to make the playoffs, there are a lot of embarrassing moments if you want to look in the past and not look forward. While you're rehashing the past though, don't forget to turn that gaze a little further back over the last couple seasons while you're at it.

Me? I'll be looking towards the future. Like the fact that the primary reason we lost that game to KC, a lack of quality players at DL, has been aggressively addressed.

Meanwhile, Josh's brother with high school experience and coffee mug balancing will be coaching our QB's next year. Ha ha. The hypocrisy on this forum is astounding.

That brother also played D1 football, something Jeremy Bates never did, and Bates made it to position coach after just one season of being an assistant in Tampa, oddly enough when we hired his daddy.

Ben McDaniels meanwhile played D1 football, then was a graduate assistant at Minnesota for the football team, then coached high school football for a couple seasons before becoming an assistant for us last year. His resume is a hell of a lot stronger than Jeremy Bates or Kyle Shanahan's where when they first got handed the title of positional coach.

And Ben McDaniels is doing it on a team that didn't even have a QB coach last season, having the OC pull double duty.

But keep acting like he's some dunce woefully under-qualified for the job. You only make yourself look bitter.

Paladin
03-29-2010, 02:54 PM
You know you've clicked "View Post" a time or two. Admit it.

Not at all. Peeps keep quoting those basturds. I keep putting up the notice, hoping that peeps will stop quoting them. I don't click them at all..

Isn't there a Firefox app that allows you to scrub posters entirely from your browser?

Yeah, but I don't have it yet. I have Firefox, but not the app.....

Dagmar
03-29-2010, 03:00 PM
Yeah, but I don't have it yet. I have Firefox, but not the app.....

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/7023

I had it but it makes threads very difficult to understand sometimes...

You can choose to ignore posts with keywords, Buff should get it for ones containing "Cutler" since it makes him so mad lol!

http://moore.ibnsports.com/image.axd?picture=2009%2F10%2FMcD_Bel.jpg

http://multimedia.heraldinteractive.com/images/b3c3cc99f5_josh_10082009.jpg

tsiguy96
03-29-2010, 03:21 PM
Popps... perhaps you missed these little details (from the thread starter post)

"The first moment of locker-room unrest — hours before the infamous soap opera known as McJaygate exploded — occurred in late February 2009 when McDaniels replaced long snapper Mike Leach with Lonie Paxton. Leach had been a locker-room bond for players on both sides of the ball. Paxton, though, was a bigger, more physical snapper who came from New England. If McDaniels could dump a long snapper who had never made a bad snap for one of his own, the more insecure "Shanahan players" were left to wonder if their days were numbered too."

wow, a reporter sensationalizing a roster move for no other reason than to create drama and sell papers. no way.

if you are so stuck on teh chiefs beating us in 09, what about the bills, raiders and chargers to close out 08? we were up 13 on bills and still managed to lose it, and raiders game, well lets not talk about how big of a joke that game was.

Cito Pelon
03-29-2010, 03:21 PM
Klis doesn't shed a favorable light on McD, but that's ok since McD did have a few WTF? moments. All of which Klis harped on.

Kind of a bitter article. How'd he dig up this gem? "In going to the extremes of essentially banishing star quarterback Jay Cutler shortly after McDaniels' arrival . . ." Never mind, I know the answer, seen the reasoning behind it here for a year.

He's really calling McD out. Didn't pull any punches, did he? Doesn't sound like Klis has much respect for McD.

Blueflame
03-29-2010, 03:31 PM
I don't remember all this doom and gloom from you when the Raiders walked into Mile High and kicked our ass in 2008.



When the Raiders walked into Mile High and kicked our ass in 2008, there was another game (chance to win) the next week. And we did, in fact win the following two games. It also wasn't the second time in a 3-week span that we allowed an underachieving division rival to embarrass us on our own field. It truly sucks that we allowed one of the Raiders' 5 wins... and one of the Chefs' 4 wins... in our house. In fact, the part I don't understand is any Bronco fan thinking that was OK.... the entire last half of the season was subpar whether you want to admit it or not.

Blueflame
03-29-2010, 03:34 PM
wow, a reporter sensationalizing a roster move for no other reason than to create drama and sell papers. no way.

if you are so stuck on teh chiefs beating us in 09, what about the bills, raiders and chargers to close out 08? we were up 13 on bills and still managed to lose it, and raiders game, well lets not talk about how big of a joke that game was.

Have you already forgotten that we had 7 RBs on IR in those final 3 games of '08, Tsi? By comparison, we were "relatively" healthy in '09. You can't excuse a sucky December '09 performance by pointing to an injury-riddled conclusion to '08.

Requiem
03-29-2010, 03:37 PM
Of course it was sub-par.

2008, under Shanahan, was also sub-par when we had to win one of our last three games to make the playoffs and lost each one of them. Season was on the line against San Diego in the final week of the season and they put 52 points on the board against us. How embarrassing.

Might want to be fair in your criticisms.

Requiem
03-29-2010, 03:39 PM
Have you already forgotten that we had 7 RBs on IR in those final 3 games of '08, Tsi? By comparison, we were "relatively" healthy in '09. You can't excuse a sucky December '09 performance by pointing to an injury-riddled conclusion to '08.

Lol.

Blueflame
03-29-2010, 03:40 PM
Of course it was sub-par.

2008, under Shanahan, was also sub-par when we had to win one of our last three games to make the playoffs and lost each one of them. Season was on the line against San Diego in the final week of the season and they put 52 points on the board against us. How embarrassing.

Might want to be fair in your criticisms.

Um... yeah. Injuries did play a role in '08, Req. If that '08 team had been healthy, then yeah, you'd have a point.

Blueflame
03-29-2010, 03:43 PM
Lol.

Strangely enough, I don't find a decimated RB corps to be a laughing matter... but your mileage may vary.

Cito Pelon
03-29-2010, 03:43 PM
You don't think it usually when the OC/QB coach doesn't talk to his starting QB for 3 weeks? If Belicheat wasn't there and didn't have such strong control over that team, it could of been a disaster for NE. I have said before and continue to believe that McDaniels is very stubborn guy that holds very strong opinions and going to need to learn as leader there is time when you have to give a little and not be such a hard ass.

McD does need a little seasoning. But, I think he'll be ok. He can't go all touchy-feely now all of a sudden. Seems like he's building a good team.

Requiem
03-29-2010, 03:44 PM
Um... yeah. Injuries did play a role in '08, Req. If that '08 team had been healthy, then yeah, you'd have a point.

The Broncos managed to rush for 400 yards in the last three games of 2008, with their highest total of the year coming against the Bills. The injuries to the running backs were not an impact on the overall rushing performance our team had, and were not the reasons as to why we didn't succeed down the stretch.

Our collapse was on the defensive side of the ball.

Injuries are not an excuse to why the Broncos failed to win one game in the final three of the season to secure the division and a playoff berth.

Try again.

Beantown Bronco
03-29-2010, 03:44 PM
Have you already forgotten that we had 7 RBs on IR in those final 3 games of '08, Tsi? By comparison, we were "relatively" healthy in '09. You can't excuse a sucky December '09 performance by pointing to an injury-riddled conclusion to '08.

I disagree. The 2009 team suffered significant injuries across the board. The 2008 team had about 90% of their significant injuries focused on one position: running back. I would rather have 7 RBs injured (and not have a decline in performance - look at the numbers - the yards per carry remained high) than suffer key injuries at 3 of the 5 OLine positions, QB, WR AND running back.

Requiem
03-29-2010, 03:46 PM
Strangely enough, I don't find a decimated RB corps to be a laughing matter... but your mileage may vary.

Denver rushed for ~400 yards and had their best rushing total of the year against the Bills. The reason those numbers aren't higher overall is because we abandoned the run in the San Diego game because we were forced to pass because we were in such a hole. Running the ball was not a problem for the Broncos the last three games of the season.

Requiem
03-29-2010, 03:46 PM
I disagree. The 2009 team suffered significant injuries across the board. The 2008 team had about 90% of their significant injuries focused on one position: running back. I would rather have 7 RBs injured (and not have a decline in performance - look at the numbers - the yards per carry remained high) than suffer key injuries at 3 of the 5 OLine positions, QB, WR AND running back.

You would be surprised at the lengths people will go to further their anti-McDaniels agendas.

BroncoBuff
03-29-2010, 03:47 PM
You can't be a Bronco fan if you disagree with the decision making of a first time head coach.

You can't on the OrangeMane. In the real world where fans are less insecure, it's cool. :~ohyah!:

strafen
03-29-2010, 03:50 PM
I disagree. The 2009 team suffered significant injuries across the board. The 2008 team had about 90% of their significant injuries focused on one position: running back. I would rather have 7 RBs injured (and not have a decline in performance - look at the numbers - the yards per carry remained high) than suffer key injuries at 3 of the 5 OLine positions, QB, WR AND running back.

You can't compare the collapse in 2008 to the collpase in 2009
I don't care how much you love McDaniels, the 2009 collapse was of epic proportions and quite embarrassing...

Beantown Bronco
03-29-2010, 03:50 PM
You can't compare the collapse in 2008 to the collpase in 2009
I don't care how much you love McDaniels, the 2009 collapse was of epic proportions and quite embarrassing...

I compared injuries and injuries alone, genius.

strafen
03-29-2010, 03:51 PM
Oh right... you can't be a Bronco fan if you disagree with the decision making of a first time head coach. That is an equally tired cliche.

The rediculous spectacle he put on after a meaningless regular season win over the Pats... that was exactly the type of behavior you would expect from a professional above reproach. Go Denver Joshes.lol!
Don't I know better...

baja
03-29-2010, 03:51 PM
When the Raiders walked into Mile High and kicked our ass in 2008, there was another game (chance to win) the next week. And we did, in fact win the following two games. It also wasn't the second time in a 3-week span that we allowed an underachieving division rival to embarrass us on our own field. It truly sucks that we allowed one of the Raiders' 5 wins... and one of the Chefs' 4 wins... in our house. In fact, the part I don't understand is any Bronco fan thinking that was OK.... the entire last half of the season was subpar whether you want to admit it or not.

McD only had one off season to up grade the mess he was left (Look at the three previous seasons under Mike) He did about as much as you could expect with the lack of depth (addressed this season on the D line in free agency) with the draft to come. In only his second year McD & X will have completely rebuilt the team and will prove it with 10 + wins.

Rohirrim
03-29-2010, 03:53 PM
You can't compare the collapse in 2008 to the collpase in 2009
I don't care how much you love McDaniels, the 2009 collapse was of epic proportions and quite embarrassing...

And yet, the 2008 collapse made NFL history.

BroncoBuff
03-29-2010, 03:56 PM
The Broncos managed to rush for 400 yards in the last three games of 2008, with their highest total of the year coming against the Bills. The injuries to the running backs were not an impact on the overall rushing performance our team had, and were not the reasons as to why we didn't succeed down the stretch.

How overly-simplistic (even foolish) of you. Of course injuries were a HUGE impact on the team's rushing performance and play down the stretch. We lost 7 running backs to IR. That matters.


Injuries are not an excuse to why the Broncos failed to win one game in the final three of the season to secure the division and a playoff berth.

Try again.

You're just wrong. Had we had even one of those RBs available against Buffalo, we probably win. Doesn't sound like you want to remember, but Eddie Royal was our leading rusher against the Bills, with P. Pope second (don't even remember his first name).

Again, I'm not sure what you don't understand here, but seven RBs gone to injury is an enormous impact on any team.

Try again.

Cito Pelon
03-29-2010, 03:58 PM
This is similar to what I've been saying ... some players are more important than others.

And I also agree with Shannon that if we keep trading established young contributors for draft picks, we're gonna have holes and we might suck for awhile. Maybe too long for Josh to succeed. That's the twist here ... if we off Cutler, Marshall and Scheffler for draft picks, there's 1) the crapshoot of whether those picks will ever pan out as well as the player, and 2) the time lag between the trade date and the date when finally the pick can contribute That might be two, three years. And if we suck in the interim, these trades might eventually cost Josh his job.

Ah, you're getting maudlin again. Buck up, young man! :thumbsup:

I don't miss Cutler all that much, and Scheff, who wants whiners around? Marshall has been treated fairly, he's just a loose cannon.

tsiguy96
03-29-2010, 03:58 PM
And yet, the 2008 collapse made NFL history.

he talks as if none of us are aware what happened at the end of 2009. like its a big surprise and one of us is going to go "wait wait wait, the team collapsed down the stretch!?"

the fact that the team played so well at the first part of the year indicates how good the coaching was, they played out of their mind on defense, but i think talent level may have caught up at the 2nd half (keeping in mind, the 2009 team stayed close with some of the best teams in the NFL in the 2nd half, just couldnt finish aka eagles and colts)

BroncoBuff
03-29-2010, 03:59 PM
And yet, the 2008 collapse made NFL history.

2009 made history too. We still had all our running backs when '09 ended, and yet as the season ended, it would be hard to deny we were the worst team in the league. Home losses the last three weeks - to two of the bottom 5 teams in the NFL (and our biggest rivals) - pretty much cements the honor.

Blueflame
03-29-2010, 03:59 PM
The Broncos managed to rush for 400 yards in the last three games of 2008, with their highest total of the year coming against the Bills. The injuries to the running backs were not an impact on the overall rushing performance our team had, and were not the reasons as to why we didn't succeed down the stretch.

Our collapse was on the defensive side of the ball.

Injuries are not an excuse to why the Broncos failed to win one game in the final three of the season to secure the division and a playoff berth.

Try again.

Yeah, the '08 defense did suck ass. Slowik needed to go and I'm glad he's no longer with the Broncos... (and because he refused to fire Slowik, Shanahan needed to go as well).

That still doesn't justify the '09 collapse though.

Blueflame
03-29-2010, 04:00 PM
McD only had one off season to up grade the mess he was left (Look at the three previous seasons under Mike) He did about as much as you could expect with the lack of depth (addressed this season on the D line in free agency) with the draft to come. In only his second year McD & X will have completely rebuilt the team and will prove it with 10 + wins.

I sincerely hope you're right, Baja.

BroncoBuff
03-29-2010, 04:00 PM
Ah, you're getting maudlin again. Buck up, young man! :thumbsup:

I don't miss Cutler all that much, and Scheff, who wants whiners around? Marshall has been treated fairly, he's just a loose cannon.

I don't disagree with you there really .... I'm just saying the time frame to replace these starters, with future draft picks, it's gonna take awhile.

Beantown Bronco
03-29-2010, 04:04 PM
How overly-simplistic (even foolish) of you. Of course injuries were a HUGE impact on the team's rushing performance and play down the stretch. We lost 7 running backs to IR. That matters.


It mattered LESS than the OLine injuries in 2009, which clearly caused more problems to the offense than the RB losses did in 2008.

You're just wrong. Had we had even one of those RBs available against Buffalo, we probably win.


You mean like Hillis, the guy who played the entire game against Oakland where we lost?

The Broncos rushed for 181 yds that game vs Buffalo. And Cutler threw for over 350 yds. Meanwhile, the defense gave up 30 pts to the freaking Bills at home. You might want to try laying a little of the blame for that loss where it belongs. It was NOT the running game.

Cito Pelon
03-29-2010, 04:05 PM
The thing is Casey; right, wrong or indifferent - Josh McDaniels career in Denver will flourish or go down in flames based on the opposite belief.

53 Men Strong - not one player, not one, is more important than another. It may work, it may not - but I value the integrity of the approach. That's why, regardless of how his career shapes in Denver. I will always be a Josh McDaniels fan. I have no #2 team, my philoshopy has always been that I love one team and hate the other 31 but if Josh McDaniels ever finds himself to be a HC of another team - they will become my #2.

Well said.

Beantown Bronco
03-29-2010, 04:10 PM
2009 made history too. We still had all our running backs when '09 ended, and yet as the season ended, it would be hard to deny we were the worst team in the league. Home losses the last three weeks - to two of the bottom 5 teams in the NFL (and our biggest rivals) - pretty much cements the honor.

Doesn't this make it crystal clear just how important a healthy, cohesive OLine is? Seriously.

2008 (and most of the recent Broncos history since the late 90s) - throw any running back in there and we're getting solid, if not spectacular, production from the position provided the OLine stays healthy all year.

2009 - suffer key injuries all along the OLine, but remain healthier at the RB position as a whole and what happens? The running game suffers.

It's not rocket science.

Cito Pelon
03-29-2010, 04:17 PM
No player is more important than another? Why would we then get rid of a perfectly good longsnapper for a more expensive one simply because he came from New England? Let's not pretend that the staff doesn't play favorites and let's not hide behind this "53 Men Strong" nonsense. Like any coaching staff...this one has its favorites and its disfavored group. Nothing inherently good or bad about it. I'm neither praising or criticizing it because its commonplace. But it is there. At the end of the day I don't care which approach they use, even if it really is a "53 Men Strong" approach. The only thing that counts is results. Period.

Is that really a good example to prove your point? Granted, it was a head-scratcher to me, but Leach-Paxton doesn't prove the point you wanted to make that McD has his "favorites". If Paxton was a crappy longsnapper, then it would prove your point.

BroncoBuff
03-29-2010, 04:19 PM
No player is more important than another? Why would we then get rid of a perfectly good longsnapper for a more expensive one simply because he came from New England? Let's not pretend that the staff doesn't play favorites and let's not hide behind this "53 Men Strong" nonsense. Like any coaching staff...this one has its favorites and its disfavored group. Nothing inherently good or bad about it. I'm neither praising or criticizing it because its commonplace. But it is there. At the end of the day I don't care which approach they use, even if it really is a "53 Men Strong" approach. The only thing that counts is results. Period.

Much truth.

BroncoBuff
03-29-2010, 04:34 PM
Is that really a good example to prove your point? Granted, it was a head-scratcher to me, but Leach-Paxton doesn't prove the point you wanted to make that McD has his "favorites". If Paxton was a crappy longsnapper, then it would prove your point.

No, Paxton was a lot more expensive. That proves the point.

It's just a saying, "not one player, not one, is more important than another." Sorry montrose, it's not a statement of "integrity," it's just a slogan. Want more proof? Okay ... how many players could have acted up like Marshall during pre-season and kept their job? Dude PUNTED THE BALL away rather than hand to the next guy. He survived those outbursts because he's Brandon Marshall. A free agent would've probably been removed from the field at that very moment.

Blueflame
03-29-2010, 04:42 PM
No, Paxton was a lot more expensive. That proves the point.

It's just a saying, "not one player, not one, is more important than another." Sorry montrose, it's not a statement of "integrity," it's just a slogan. Want more proof? Okay ... how many players could have acted up like Marshall during pre-season and kept their job? Dude PUNTED THE BALL away rather than hand to the next guy. He survived those outbursts because he's Brandon Marshall. A free agent would've probably been removed from the field at that very moment.

And the other point is that we already had a very good long-snapper. The change could have been rationalized if Leach sucked, but he didn't.

Tombstone RJ
03-29-2010, 04:58 PM
I find it hilarious that people are arguing over the Paxton/Leach situation. The anti McD group is all like "it's a sign of how McD is a liar. LIAR, LIAR, LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!!"

Maybe McD would not make that move again, hindsight being what it is. Point being, McD has admitted he'd do a some things differently.

Time to let it go people. Just let it go.

baja
03-29-2010, 05:01 PM
And the other point is that we already had a very good long-snapper. The change could have been rationalized if Leach sucked, but he didn't.

The improvement was never about the players ability it was about having a player in the locker room that understood what was expected from the first year coach and his system. All new coaches bring in players from their old team for the sole reason to help in the transition with the players to the new regime.

strafen
03-29-2010, 05:02 PM
I find it hilarious that people are arguing over the Paxton/Leach situation. The anti McD group is all like "it's a sign of how McD is a liar. LIAR, LIAR, LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!!"

Maybe McD would not make that move again, hindsight being what it is. Point being, McD has admitted he'd do a some things differently.

Time to let it go people. Just let it go.My friend...
Actions speak louder than words.
That's what concerns some of us, and thus, the point being...

Blueflame
03-29-2010, 05:11 PM
The improvement was never about the players ability it was about having a player in the locker room that understood what was expected from the first year coach and his system. All new coaches bring in players from their old team for the sole reason to help in the transition with the players to the new regime.

According to what the article said about Leach being a team leader (for both the offense and defense), a valid argument could be made that he might have been at least as... if not more... valuable in the locker room than Paxton, seeing as how most of the players in that locker room would not be newcomers to the team. I dunno that I'd give the "locker room leadership" edge to Paxton at all.

Cito Pelon
03-29-2010, 05:25 PM
It's odd that Marshall had 10 TD's in 2009, which is 40% of his career TD's.

Florida_Bronco
03-29-2010, 05:27 PM
According to what the article said about Leach being a team leader (for both the offense and defense), a valid argument could be made that he might have been at least as... if not more... valuable in the locker room than Paxton, seeing as how most of the players in that locker room would not be newcomers to the team. I dunno that I'd give the "locker room leadership" edge to Paxton at all.

But see, replacing Leach wasn't an indictment against Leach. McD simply felt like bringing in the known quantity (the guy he had worked with for almost a decade) while making an upgrade at the position was a smart move.

Had the locker room not been in such poor shape when he took over, he probably doesn't make that move.

Requiem
03-29-2010, 05:30 PM
Yeah, the '08 defense did suck ass. Slowik needed to go and I'm glad he's no longer with the Broncos... (and because he refused to fire Slowik, Shanahan needed to go as well).

That still doesn't justify the '09 collapse though.

Our 2-8 finish down the stretch has no justification, just like there is no proper justification for the 2008 collapse where we failed to win one game in the final three.

Requiem
03-29-2010, 05:38 PM
How overly-simplistic (even foolish) of you. Of course injuries were a HUGE impact on the team's rushing performance and play down the stretch. We lost 7 running backs to IR. That matters.

Yet we were able to produce in the running department despite that. Bringing up injuries as an excuse to why we did not make the playoffs under Shanahan in 2008 is misleading because most of the injuries on the team happened in one area, and we were still able to have relative successes running the ball all things considered.

That has nothing to do with the fact how many points we gave up to Buffalo at home, and the beatdown the Chargers gave us the final week of the season.

Blueflame keeps talking about the Raiders game as inexcusable, and how much of a tyrant Josh is as a coach, but seems to defend Mike and the 08 team even though they blew three games down the stretch that by all means, they could have won.

People could start being fair in their assessments.

Blueflame
03-29-2010, 05:38 PM
But see, replacing Leach wasn't an indictment against Leach. McD simply felt like bringing in the known quantity (the guy he had worked with for almost a decade) while making an upgrade at the position was a smart move.

Guess one would first have to view Paxton as an "upgrade" (as opposed to a "lateral" move).

Had the locker room not been in such poor shape when he took over, he probably doesn't make that move.

And you know this how? ???

Blueflame
03-29-2010, 05:44 PM
Our 2-8 finish down the stretch has no justification, just like there is no proper justification for the 2008 collapse where we failed to win one game in the final three.

And we identified the problem in the 2008 season (Slowik) and corrected it.

Yet we were able to produce in the running department despite that. Bringing up injuries as an excuse to why we did not make the playoffs under Shanahan in 2008 is misleading because most of the injuries on the team happened in one area, and we were still able to have relative successes running the ball all things considered.

That has nothing to do with the fact how many points we gave up to Buffalo at home, and the beatdown the Chargers gave us the final week of the season.

Blueflame keeps talking about the Raiders game as inexcusable, and how much of a tyrant Josh is as a coach, but seems to defend Mike and the 08 team even though they blew three games down the stretch that by all means, they could have won.

People could start being fair in their assessments.

Uh. No. If Shanahan had to go as well in order to get rid of Slowik, then he had to go. I did not want to keep Shanahan if doing so meant also keeping Slowik.

The Chiefs game (Week 17, 2009) was pathetic and inexcusable. Especially following (as it did) a home loss to the Raiders just two games earlier.

So just to clarify... because the '08 team struggled in the last 4 games, it makes it OK for the '09 team to suck in 8 of the last 10 games? The two things are totally unrelated. Shanahan's gone; McDaniels isn't. Hence, McDaniels is the one who's relevant to the Broncos now. Right?

Requiem
03-29-2010, 05:48 PM
Try reading before responding. Helps a ton. Saves time for yourself, me and others.

Florida_Bronco
03-29-2010, 05:49 PM
Guess one would first have to view Paxton as an "upgrade" (as opposed to a "lateral" move). And those in the NFL do. Paxton has long been regarded as one of the top long snappers in the NFL.

And you know this how? ??? Assumption based on common sense. McDaniels himself said that establishing the mindset he wants was very important. Had that mindset already been established, Leach is probably spared the axe.

Blueflame
03-29-2010, 05:58 PM
And those in the NFL do. Paxton has long been regarded as one of the top long snappers in the NFL.

Assumption based on common sense. McDaniels himself said that establishing the mindset he wants was very important. Had that mindset already been established, Leach is probably spared the axe.

Leach was also one of the league's best long snappers.

Bolded the only important part. :welcome:

Requiem
03-29-2010, 06:03 PM
Leach was one of the league's best long snappers according to who?

DBroncos4life
03-29-2010, 06:13 PM
Leach was one of the league's best long snappers according to who?

I'm sure you have some kind of stat to prove how good/poor each player is at long snapping?

Blueflame
03-29-2010, 06:13 PM
Leach was one of the league's best long snappers according to who?

... and you chide me to read before responding... Ha!

From the OP of this thread:

"The first moment of locker-room unrest — hours before the infamous soap opera known as McJaygate exploded — occurred in late February 2009 when McDaniels replaced long snapper Mike Leach with Lonie Paxton. Leach had been a locker-room bond for players on both sides of the ball. Paxton, though, was a bigger, more physical snapper who came from New England. If McDaniels could dump a long snapper who had never made a bad snap for one of his own, the more insecure "Shanahan players" were left to wonder if their days were numbered too."

Leach was heading into his 10th NFL season... and had never had a bad snap. I'd say that's pretty good, wouldn't you?

Requiem
03-29-2010, 06:22 PM
It has nothing to do with reading.

I am just wondering what NFL head coaches or executives you can quote that would back up the statement that Leach was one of the best long-snappers in the league, and not a candidate for replacement.

Outside Mike Leach, how many other long-snappers could you actually name? Paxton won't count either.

Paxton was brought in. Leach was set out. Big ****ing deal.

Paxton has been a very reliable long-snapper in the NFL and was able to string together many consistent streaks with longevity over his tenure with the Pats. He is very good in his own right. It is quite obvious that McDaniels' brought him in because of familiarity and preference. A lot of coaches do this.

It really doesn't matter.

In fact, didn't Prater have his best year here? Might have to do a little with the new snapper. Perhaps?

Cito Pelon
03-29-2010, 06:24 PM
I don't disagree with you there really .... I'm just saying the time frame to replace these starters, with future draft picks, it's gonna take awhile.

The future seems bright. Granted, draft picks are a crap shoot. But I like the direction of the team.

strafen
03-29-2010, 06:25 PM
Leach was one of the league's best long snappers according to who?This blind love for McDaniels makes you say stupid things, doesn't it?
Leach is regarded as one of the best LS in the NFL by anyone in the business outside the Mcdaniels nuthuggers.
Just because McIdiot decided to bring his own guy doesn't make him a lesser player.
Dumb people. Geez!!!

Requiem
03-29-2010, 06:30 PM
Really? Who in the NFL can you quote to attest to Leach's long-snapping prowess?

Popps
03-29-2010, 06:31 PM
Please tell me we're not still talking about a long-snapper.

Really?

A ****ing long-snapper? We're wadding up our panties over that?

Half of you douche-bags didn't know we had a long-snapper before last season. The other half couldn't name ONE single other long-snapper in the entire league.

Long snapper. Get the **** outta here. Who the **** cares.

Cito Pelon
03-29-2010, 06:32 PM
No, Paxton was a lot more expensive. That proves the point.

It's just a saying, "not one player, not one, is more important than another." Sorry montrose, it's not a statement of "integrity," it's just a slogan. Want more proof? Okay ... how many players could have acted up like Marshall during pre-season and kept their job? Dude PUNTED THE BALL away rather than hand to the next guy. He survived those outbursts because he's Brandon Marshall. A free agent would've probably been removed from the field at that very moment.

C'mon dude. Paxton was not a lot more expensive. It was a head-scratcher, but I don't think the move proves a "favorites" point.

And please, Marshall was suspended for the incident you describe.

Blueflame
03-29-2010, 06:33 PM
It has nothing to do with reading.

I am just wondering what NFL head coaches or executives you can quote that would back up the statement that Leach was one of the best long-snappers in the league, and not a candidate for replacement.

Outside Mike Leach, how many other long-snappers could you actually name? Paxton won't count either.

Um... clearly you hadn't read (or hadn't paid attention to) the thread you're posting on or you would have known that Leach had never made a bad snap.

Why would anyone want to replace a LS who had never made a bad snap? ??? Generally, it's incompetence... not doing a good job... that makes one a "candidate for replacement"...

Know what? Long snappers aren't exactly high-profile NFL players. For me, it's enough to know who does that job for the Broncos. Kinda curious what point you're trying to make here... whatever it is, it's pretty much irrelevant.

Drek
03-29-2010, 06:37 PM
Guess one would first have to view Paxton as an "upgrade" (as opposed to a "lateral" move).

Exactly why would one need to view it as an upgrade and not just a lateral move?

Explain how taking the known quantity over the unknown, regardless of if it is an upgrade or a lateral move is in any way the wrong move.

Lonnie Paxton was a team captain on a Super Bowl winner. A much beloved core locker room guy on a team that focused on this exact same kind of locker room atmosphere. He was as good a locker room guy as you could get for the kind of team McDaniels wants to put together.

There is literally no way that Mike Leach could have been an upgrade in this kind of locker room leader role. So at that point you're saying you'd rather live with the risk that Leach doesn't fit the locker room for absolutely NO GAIN than have the guy you know does. I'd love to know how that makes any rational sense whatsoever.

And lets stop talking about the money. Mike Leach was making $750K a year as a 10 year vet. Lonnie Paxton makes all of $250K more than him. That isn't even league minimum money. Every team in the league will waste more money than that on guys they cut before they even get halfway through preseason. You're talking about pennies for an NFL organization.

Requiem
03-29-2010, 06:38 PM
My point is for you and others to shut the **** up about McDaniels' making a common place move by bringing in players he was familiar with when it really doesn't matter that much.

Paxton has a lengthy history of doing well in the NFL. When he wasn't snapping in 2003, you saw a huge decrease in the success of Adam Vinatieri, because they had to find a replacement for him. Interestingly enough, with Paxton as a LS, Matt Prater improved vastly over the past season. Personal improvement for sure, but perhaps Paxton was snapping better than Leach was and getting the ball to the holder in a quicker and better fashion than the man he replaced.

It is obvious why McDaniels brought him in. And so far, so good with Paxton as a Bronco. Did he have any troubles this year?

He's been a snapper for three Super Bowl teams, and the snapper for one of the game's most prolific clutch-time kickers.

Get over it.

Blueflame
03-29-2010, 06:40 PM
Exactly why would one need to view it as an upgrade and not just a lateral move?

Explain how taking the known quantity over the unknown, regardless of if it is an upgrade or a lateral move is in any way the wrong move.

Lonnie Paxton was a team captain on a Super Bowl winner. A much beloved core locker room guy on a team that focused on this exact same kind of locker room atmosphere. He was as good a locker room guy as you could get for the kind of team McDaniels wants to put together.

There is literally no way that Mike Leach could have been an upgrade in this kind of locker room leader role. So at that point you're saying you'd rather live with the risk that Leach doesn't fit the locker room for absolutely NO GAIN than have the guy you know does. I'd love to know how that makes any rational sense whatsoever.

And lets stop talking about the money. Mike Leach was making $750K a year as a 10 year vet. Lonnie Paxton makes all of $250K more than him. That isn't even league minimum money. Every team in the league will waste more money than that on guys they cut before they even get halfway through preseason. You're talking about pennies for an NFL organization.

FB claimed Paxton was an "upgrade". I view him as a lateral move... an unnecessary, more-expensive personnel change. There's only a "given" number of changes any new coach is gonna be able to make and they should be reserved for areas where the change is truly needed. (like defense...)

Requiem
03-29-2010, 06:44 PM
And McDaniels brought in a ton of defensive free agents, along with finding a good coordinator to help improve our efforts. Looks like our defense did much better than last year, and still has a ways to go. This off-season, the focus on defensive players in free agency continued. Have any more mud to spill out your butt or are you done?

Cito Pelon
03-29-2010, 06:50 PM
I understand the anger about cutting Leach, I wasn't happy about it myself. But, it's kind of funny Leach was seldom mentioned during his Bronco career by the posters here as being such an important guy.

A few of us mentioned Leach as an important guy, but most were looking to replace him year after year because they figured why keep a roster spot for just a longsnapper. I can't count the times posters here bagged on Leach as a wasted roster spot, there was hundreds of posts bagging on Leach as a wasted roster spot.

Now Leach is a rallying cry for how stupid it was to cut him. Jesus.

baja
03-29-2010, 07:00 PM
According to what the article said about Leach being a team leader (for both the offense and defense), a valid argument could be made that he might have been at least as... if not more... valuable in the locker room than Paxton, seeing as how most of the players in that locker room would not be newcomers to the team. I dunno that I'd give the "locker room leadership" edge to Paxton at all.

The part you are missing is Leach was a leader in Shanny's locker room McD wanted a leader that understood what he expected of his players and knowledge of his system, that guy was clearly N E's Paxton.

Cito Pelon
03-29-2010, 07:03 PM
Pretty funny that if you do a search, you'll find that most posters didn't give a damn about Mike Leach during his time, and if they had an opinion about him, it was to CUT HIM!

Year after year on the Mane, people constantly complained about the roster spot Leach took from a more qualified player. There was only about 3-4 of us that defended Leach. Now all of a sudden there's wailing about his loss.

Drek
03-29-2010, 07:08 PM
FB claimed Paxton was an "upgrade". I view him as a lateral move... an unnecessary, more-expensive personnel change. There's only a "given" number of changes any new coach is gonna be able to make and they should be reserved for areas where the change is truly needed. (like defense...)

On the field they where probably a lateral move.

In the locker room, for the type of team McDaniels wanted to build, they where not. The chances of Mike Leach being 100% the locker room guy Lonnie Paxton is for what McDaniels wanted to do is as close to zero as any probability can get.

And how exactly did paying $250K more for our long snapper handcuff us in our other FA moves? Who do you think we missed out on that the additional $250K would've helped us acquire?

Come on Blue. If you're going to debate a point at least take it to that next logical level. Don't just leave it hanging out there like a half completed sentence.

Rohirrim
03-29-2010, 07:36 PM
I know this won't help with the continued polarization (is that the zeitgeist of our time?) of the Mane on this issue, but McDaniels did admit that he made some mistakes last year, including not being up to speed on the makeup of the team when the draft came up. So, at least Josh doesn't think he's perfect. I know that sort of erodes his status as a perfect villain, but hey, that's just the way it goes. He knows there were mistakes and now he's trying to learn and improve. Works for me. It's the real world. That's all you can reasonably be expected to do - learn from your mistakes. Bringing in those three D linemen is a big improvement. I'm sure there will be others. McD has shown that he isn't afraid to make something happen on draft day. Should be fun. I hated most of Shanahan's drafts. Hopefully, Josh and Xanders do better.

baja
03-29-2010, 07:53 PM
I know this won't help with the continued polarization (is that the zeitgeist of our time?) of the Mane on this issue, but McDaniels did admit that he made some mistakes last year, including not being up to speed on the makeup of the team when the draft came up. So, at least Josh doesn't think he's perfect. I know that sort of erodes his status as a perfect villain, but hey, that's just the way it goes. He knows there were mistakes and now he's trying to learn and improve. Works for me. It's the real world. That's all you can reasonably be expected to do - learn from your mistakes. Bringing in those three D linemen is a big improvement. I'm sure there will be others. McD has shown that he isn't afraid to make something happen on draft day. Should be fun. I hated most of Shanahan's drafts. Hopefully, Josh and Xanders do better.

Did you not know around here our first year coach is expected to be perfect.

Dedhed
03-29-2010, 08:24 PM
Bump to get some tools bumps off the front page

Bronco Rob
03-30-2010, 04:11 AM
:thumbs:

watermock
03-30-2010, 05:17 AM
Really? Who in the NFL can you quote to attest to Leach's long-snapping prowess?

Wow.

I guess you can Req.

*sniff*

watermock
03-30-2010, 05:20 AM
Please tell me we're not still talking about a long-snapper.

Really?

A ****ing long-snapper? We're wadding up our panties over that?

Half of you douche-bags didn't know we had a long-snapper before last season. The other half couldn't name ONE single other long-snapper in the entire league.

Long snapper. Get the **** outta here. Who the **** cares.

Indeed, who cares, that's the fuicking point moron.

watermock
03-30-2010, 05:38 AM
I know this won't help with the continued polarization (is that the zeitgeist of our time?) of the Mane on this issue, but McDaniels did admit that he made some mistakes last year, including not being up to speed on the makeup of the team when the draft came up. So, at least Josh doesn't think he's perfect. I know that sort of erodes his status as a perfect villain, but hey, that's just the way it goes. He knows there were mistakes and now he's trying to learn and improve. Works for me. It's the real world. That's all you can reasonably be expected to do - learn from your mistakes. Bringing in those three D linemen is a big improvement. I'm sure there will be others. McD has shown that he isn't afraid to make something happen on draft day. Should be fun. I hated most of Shanahan's drafts. Hopefully, Josh and Xanders do better.


For once your right.

watermock
03-30-2010, 05:42 AM
However, Joshie has never admitted a mistake.

watermock
03-30-2010, 05:48 AM
I [know that sort of erodes his status as a perfect villain, but hey, that's just the way it goes.

No, it not the "way it goes".

Ellis gave Mcdummy the greenligt to McDrunk.

watermock
03-30-2010, 05:57 AM
It's becoming pretty clear at this point.

We have the easist schedule in the nfl nextyear.

Arizona is down. aand the reest is crap.


Denver shouold go 11-5.

baja
03-30-2010, 09:40 AM
Really? Who in the NFL can you quote to attest to Leach's dong-snapping prowess?

Let's hope no one.

TonyR
03-30-2010, 11:33 AM
Denver shouold go 11-5.

Come on, mock, make it 16-0 so you have more room to complain next year.

strafen
03-30-2010, 11:41 AM
On the field they where probably a lateral move.

In the locker room, for the type of team McDaniels wanted to build, they where not. The chances of Mike Leach being 100% the locker room guy Lonnie Paxton is for what McDaniels wanted to do is as close to zero as any probability can get.

And how exactly did paying $250K more for our long snapper handcuff us in our other FA moves? Who do you think we missed out on that the additional $250K would've helped us acquire?

Come on Blue. If you're going to debate a point at least take it to that next logical level. Don't just leave it hanging out there like a half completed sentence.Come on man.
Leach had established some rapport with the guys. Paxton is the new guy coming in and he wasn't going to add anything to the locker room of an immediate impact.

Tombstone RJ
03-30-2010, 11:51 AM
Come on man.
Leach had established some rapport with the guys. Paxton is the new guy coming in and he wasn't going to add anything to the locker room of an immediate impact.

Wow, so glad your in the locker room there guy. It's insight like this that keeps you warm and fuzzy with all the anti McD peeps here.

It's speculative at best and complete hogwash at worst. Right on par with much of the crap you post.

strafen
03-30-2010, 12:00 PM
Wow, so glad your in the locker room there guy. It's insight like this that keeps you warm and fuzzy with all the anti McD peeps here.

It's speculative at best and complete hogwash at worst. Right on par with much of the crap you post.There were reports about that.
You are attacking me for bringing up something you don't want to hear?
It is what it is.
Players were uncomfortable with the decision to bring Paxton in and get rid of Leach.
Why do you now believe that Leach should've been kicked out?
Because of your pro-McDaniels campaign?
Oh, the antiMcDaniels people, oh my God. How can people dare to question a rookie 33-year old coach with zero experience?
We must accept that Paxton was one of his firts moves he made when he became a coach, and threfore it must've been the right move!
Crap is what you post, bud!

misturanderson
03-30-2010, 12:08 PM
It's speculative at best and complete hogwash at worst. Right on par with all of the crap you post.

Fixed

chex
03-30-2010, 12:21 PM
There were reports about that.
You are attacking me for bringing up something you don't want to hear?
It is what it is.
Players were uncomfortable with the decision to bring Paxton in and get rid of Leach.
Why do you now believe that Leach should've been kicked out?
Because of your pro-McDaniels campaign?
Oh, the antiMcDaniels people, oh my God. How can people dare to question a rookie 33-year old coach with zero experience?
We must accept that Paxton was one of his firts moves he made when he became a coach, and threfore it must've been the right move!
Crap is what you post, bud!

Why do you believe that Paxton shouldn’t have been brought in?
Because of your anti-McDaniels campaign?
Oh, the proMcDaniels people, oh my God. How can people dare to support a rookie 33-year old head coach with zero experience since he brought in a long snapper?
We must accept that Paxton was one of his first moves he made when he became a coach, and therefore it must be the wrong move!
Crap is what you post, bud!

LRtagger
03-30-2010, 12:23 PM
And we identified the problem in the 2008 season (Slowik) and corrected it.



Uh. No. If Shanahan had to go as well in order to get rid of Slowik, then he had to go. I did not want to keep Shanahan if doing so meant also keeping Slowik.

The Chiefs game (Week 17, 2009) was pathetic and inexcusable. Especially following (as it did) a home loss to the Raiders just two games earlier.

So just to clarify... because the '08 team struggled in the last 4 games, it makes it OK for the '09 team to suck in 8 of the last 10 games? The two things are totally unrelated. Shanahan's gone; McDaniels isn't. Hence, McDaniels is the one who's relevant to the Broncos now. Right?

The problem lies in the fact that you blame Slowik and our RB injury problems to the 2008 collapse, but place full blame on McDaniels for the 2009 collapse even though we had injuries along both fronts.

The biggest problem in 2008 was defensive coaching and personel, something Mike aparently had no plans of fixing (well, the coaching part anyways).

The biggest problem in 2009 was our offensive and defensive fronts wearing down. McDaniels has been addressing both since FA opened this offseason.

Was the 2009 collapse embarrassing? Sure, but you can't deny our coach is attempting to fix what broke down. Shanahan didn't prove that he could do that over the course of several years.

If the team flops again next year, then I will worry just as I did when the 2006, 2007, and 2008 teams flopped.

strafen
03-30-2010, 12:29 PM
Why do you believe that Paxton shouldn’t have been brought in?
Because of your anti-McDaniels campaign?
Oh, the proMcDaniels people, oh my God. How can people dare to support a rookie 33-year old head coach with zero experience since he brought in a long snapper?
We must accept that Paxton was one of his first moves he made when he became a coach, and therefore it must be the wrong move!
Crap is what you post, bud!

It can swing both ways, can't it? ;)

chex
03-30-2010, 12:38 PM
It can swing both ways, can't it? ;)

Yep, which is my point exactly. I would hope more people realize that. It gets to being annoying hearing how wronged both sides were when it’s constantly done reciprocally.

Blueflame
03-30-2010, 01:55 PM
The problem lies in the fact that you blame Slowik and our RB injury problems to the 2008 collapse, but place full blame on McDaniels for the 2009 collapse even though we had injuries along both fronts.

The biggest problem in 2008 was defensive coaching and personel, something Mike aparently had no plans of fixing (well, the coaching part anyways).

The biggest problem in 2009 was our offensive and defensive fronts wearing down. McDaniels has been addressing both since FA opened this offseason.

Was the 2009 collapse embarrassing? Sure, but you can't deny our coach is attempting to fix what broke down. Shanahan didn't prove that he could do that over the course of several years.

If the team flops again next year, then I will worry just as I did when the 2006, 2007, and 2008 teams flopped.

Actually I'm kinda mystified as to "what happened" to cause a team that was 6-0 to suddenly collapse and lose 8 of the next 10. The most obvious thing was the injury to Ryan Harris... once we got into the "bench depth" on the O-line the cohesion seemed to evaporate.

However... I do sometimes wonder if "focusing more on the D-line" in the offseason (the primary "area of need" at the time)... rather than making changes at QB and long-snapper...might have paid off a bit more. And maybe... sticking with the ZBS (which our O-line personnel was used to/more suited to) might have kept the O-line an area of strength rather than a liability. But those are just one football fan's thoughts....

Tombstone RJ
03-30-2010, 02:19 PM
There were reports about that.
You are attacking me for bringing up something you don't want to hear?
It is what it is.

Nope. You are claiming something you know nothing about. You said "...Paxton... wasn't going to add anything to the locker room...." How do you know? You don't. You don't have a clue. All you know is that Leach was a good locker room guy under Shanny's team. He may have been a good locker room guy under McD's team too and I won't argue that. However, I do take contention with your assumption that Paxton didn't bring anything to the locker room when in fact, he could have helped many players adjust to McD's style of coaching.


Players were uncomfortable with the decision to bring Paxton in and get rid of Leach.
Why do you now believe that Leach should've been kicked out?!

I never said any such thing. What I am saying is you don't know Paxton's effect on the team.


Because of your pro-McDaniels campaign?
Oh, the antiMcDaniels people, oh my God. How can people dare to question a rookie 33-year old coach with zero experience?

I'm a pro-Broncos fan. As I've said time and time again, McD deserves some lattitude because he is young and this is his first HC position. He's admitted mistakes which means he's learning. I will give him the chance to grow.


We must accept that Paxton was one of his firts moves he made when he became a coach, and threfore it must've been the right move!
Crap is what you post, bud!

That is not what I said. I said McD has already admitted he made some mistakes (which IMHO speaks volumes about the man) and that in hindsight, he may not do that same move again. That is what I said.

LRtagger
03-30-2010, 03:28 PM
Actually I'm kinda mystified as to "what happened" to cause a team that was 6-0 to suddenly collapse and lose 8 of the next 10. The most obvious thing was the injury to Ryan Harris... once we got into the "bench depth" on the O-line the cohesion seemed to evaporate.

However... I do sometimes wonder if "focusing more on the D-line" in the offseason (the primary "area of need" at the time)... rather than making changes at QB and long-snapper...might have paid off a bit more. And maybe... sticking with the ZBS (which our O-line personnel was used to/more suited to) might have kept the O-line an area of strength rather than a liability. But those are just one football fan's thoughts....

Harris was a huge reason as was the lackluster play of Hamilton and Wiegmann. And our band-aid defensive line that gave out the second half of the season.

I understand and appreciate your concern, but it was well known that Josh was coming into Denver to run both the offense AND defense that he wanted to run. Some might argue that is what caused the rift between McDaniels and Cutler...the fact that McD canned all of Cutler's coaches (namely Bates) in order to implement his system.

Josh doesn't run a ZBS in his offense, but you have to appreciate the fact that he tried to implement it somewhat (although unsuccessfully) by retaining the entire offensive line and some staff. I don't think the fans can expect Josh to come to Denver and completely change his philosophy and playbook to accomodate what Mike left behind. Sure, he should have brought in more OLine talent in FA last year, but perhaps he thought he could get by and was more focused on bringing in defensive FAs, which I think everyone can agree he did a pretty good job on.

I'm not sure why everyone is so focused on the long snapper change. Sure Leach was fine, but it's not like we downgraded and I hardly think it caused any ruccus in the locker room. Do you think the team waited until the bye week to say "Hey, wait a minute, our coach got rid of a perfectly good long snapper a couple months ago...I hope he doesn't get rid of me next". It had no bearing on the way the team played last year.

With that said, there was only so much of the staff and roster that the guy could turn over last offseason. But I think most of the roster decisions that were made last year made this a better team overall. I'm willing to give the guy at least another offseason or two to continue to do what he thinks is necessary to fix the problems with the roster before I conclude that he is destroying the franchise.

Even though the team gave out towards the end, I felt they played much better in those losses than they did in 2008 during the collapse. They destroyed the Giants and Chefs, then lost heartbreakers to the Colts, Raiders, and Eagles. The last Chiefs game was embarrassing, but Jamal Charles played out of his mind and our defensive front had fallen apart. In 2008, our collapse consisted of getting blown out by the Raiders, playing our best game of the year against the Jets, squeeking out a win against the Chefs, getting blown out by the Panthers, getting beat up by the terrible Bills, and getting destroyed by the 8-8 Chargers.

Blueflame
03-30-2010, 03:48 PM
Harris was a huge reason as was the lackluster play of Hamilton and Wiegmann. And our band-aid defensive line that gave out the second half of the season.

I understand and appreciate your concern, but it was well known that Josh was coming into Denver to run both the offense AND defense that he wanted to run. Some might argue that is what caused the rift between McDaniels and Cutler...the fact that McD canned all of Cutler's coaches (namely Bates) in order to implement his system.

Josh doesn't run a ZBS in his offense, but you have to appreciate the fact that he tried to implement it somewhat (although unsuccessfully) by retaining the entire offensive line and some staff. I don't think the fans can expect Josh to come to Denver and completely change his philosophy and playbook to accomodate what Mike left behind. Sure, he should have brought in more OLine talent in FA last year, but perhaps he thought he could get by and was more focused on bringing in defensive FAs, which I think everyone can agree he did a pretty good job on.

I'm not sure why everyone is so focused on the long snapper change. Sure Leach was fine, but it's not like we downgraded and I hardly think it caused any ruccus in the locker room. Do you think the team waited until the bye week to say "Hey, wait a minute, our coach got rid of a perfectly good long snapper a couple months ago...I hope he doesn't get rid of me next". It had no bearing on the way the team played last year.

With that said, there was only so much of the staff and roster that the guy could turn over last offseason. But I think most of the roster decisions that were made last year made this a better team overall. I'm willing to give the guy at least another offseason or two to continue to do what he thinks is necessary to fix the problems with the roster before I conclude that he is destroying the franchise.

Even though the team gave out towards the end, I felt they played much better in those losses than they did in 2008 during the collapse. They destroyed the Giants and Chefs, then lost heartbreakers to the Colts, Raiders, and Eagles. The last Chiefs game was embarrassing, but Jamal Charles played out of his mind and our defensive front had fallen apart. In 2008, our collapse consisted of getting blown out by the Raiders, playing our best game of the year against the Jets, squeeking out a win against the Chefs, getting blown out by the Panthers, getting beat up by the terrible Bills, and getting destroyed by the 8-8 Chargers.

Agreed. This is exactly why some were questioning his decision to make a change at long-snapper (an area where we could probably have "stood pat" and attained similar results) rather than doing more to address the defense. LaMont Jordan was also a total waste of salary/roster slot. Anyone on the defensive side of the ball would have been a better FA acquisition.

LRtagger
03-30-2010, 03:55 PM
Agreed. This is exactly why some were questioning his decision to make a change at long-snapper (an area where we could probably have "stood pat" and attained similar results) rather than doing more to address the defense. LaMont Jordan was also a total waste of salary/roster slot. Anyone on the defensive side of the ball would have been a better FA acquisition.

Well you are taking my quote out of context. It wasn't meant to say that if we hadn't signed Paxton or Jordan, etc that we could have signed more defensive talent.

There are only so many FA's every year that a team can pick up. There simply weren't enough players available last offseason to replace the duds that Mike had left on the roster.

Paxton was an available FA last year and Josh was familiar with him and trusted him as a player, so he brought him in. It doesn't mean "because Josh made a move at a position of no-need that he neglected the defensive line".

That's what I meant by taking more than one season. There are only so many FA's available in any given offseason. You can't bring in a FA at every position of need in every offseason and expect him to be an upgrade over what was already on the roster. Especially along the trenches where top-tier players are invaluable in the NFL. But I would say Josh upgraded the LB and secondary exponentially from what we put on the field in 08. And now he is working with what is available to do that along the lines (IMO).

Requiem
03-30-2010, 04:08 PM
There weren't many quality 3-4 defensive lineman available last off-season, that is why there were not awesome upgrades there. Actually, we signed Fields, Reid and Peterson.

On top of that, Dawkins, Davis, Goodman and Hill were also brought in on defense. We drafted Robert Ayers as well. To act like we didn't do anything to improve the defense would be disingenuous. Really, the act is getting old.

Blueflame
03-30-2010, 04:11 PM
Well you are taking my quote out of context. It wasn't meant to say that if we hadn't signed Paxton or Jordan, etc that we could have signed more defensive talent.

There are only so many FA's every year that a team can pick up. There simply weren't enough players available last offseason to replace the duds that Mike had left on the roster.

Paxton was an available FA last year and Josh was familiar with him and trusted him as a player, so he brought him in. It doesn't mean "because Josh made a move at a position of no-need that he neglected the defensive line".

That's what I meant by taking more than one season. There are only so many FA's available in any given offseason. You can't bring in a FA at every position of need in every offseason and expect him to be an upgrade over what was already on the roster. Especially along the trenches where top-tier players are invaluable in the NFL. But I would say Josh upgraded the LB and secondary exponentially from what we put on the field in 08. And now he is working with what is available to do that along the lines (IMO).

Nonetheless, it's fair to expect fans to question the "prioritization" shown by a rookie HC when making personnel decisions. And many felt that McDaniels could have done more (both in the draft and via FA) than he did to address the primary problems (defense) on the team.

When a HC decides to do a total rebuild (changing everything rather than prioritizing which areas are most in need of immediate attention) then yeah, it's going to take at least two... maybe three or four years before the full results can be seen/evaluated. Linemen in particular rarely make an impact in their rookie seasons (they need time to develop into their full potential). And the lines are arguably the most important factors in the performance of any football team. The older linemen that he's signing as FAs may be adequate role-players for the immediate future, but we need to be drafting/grooming guys who will be more than temporary stopgaps.

The bottom line in today's NFL is this: win now or else... it's a valid question whether or not McDaniels will have the luxury of 4... maybe 5 seasons to see full results (to see "his team" materialize).

Drek
03-30-2010, 04:43 PM
Come on man.
Leach had established some rapport with the guys. Paxton is the new guy coming in and he wasn't going to add anything to the locker room of an immediate impact.

See. You obviously don't get the entire concept of a "team before player" club.

It doesn't matter one damn bit who liked Leach. All that matters is that Lonnie Paxton would make the cognizant decision to play himself into an early grave if it meant he'd win another title. McDaniels knew that. That is the kind of attitude he wants on this team.

Maybe Leach has it. Maybe he doesn't. No way for McDaniels to know for sure. But he was sure Paxton had it, and he wanted those kinds of guys in the locker room.

Its got nothing to do with locker room chemistry or guys playing with their buddies. It has everything to do with all the guys in the locker room knowing that if you aren't putting team before self camp to the end of the season you don't belong here.

You can take care of yourself financially in the off-season if you want, though that might not happen here. But when you're committed to a season with this organization doing everything you can to help this organization win is what they expect from the first day to the last.

If McDaniels asked Dawkins to go be a gunner on special teams I can guarantee you Dawkins would jump at the chance. That is a big reason why Dawkins is here. If he asked Champ to play scat back Champ would do the same, and that is a big reason why if Champ is willing to take a little less money he'll be sticking around a long time. Doom willingly moved to 3-4 OLB even though when he first came out of school he said he had no desire to change from DE.

Those are the guys McDaniels wants. When given the choice between a guy who is definitely that (Paxton) and a guy who might be that (Leach) why would he take additional risk for all of $250K?

TonyR
03-30-2010, 07:13 PM
I'm not sure why everyone is so focused on the long snapper change.

They're grasping. Desperately clinging to their belief that the organization made a mistake replacing Shanahan with McDaniels. It consumes them.

Good post, by the way.

LRtagger
03-30-2010, 07:21 PM
They're grasping. Desperately clinging to their belief that the organization made a mistake replacing Shanahan with McDaniels. It consumes them.

Good post, by the way.

Thanks.

You would think that if the Paxton signing (which happened in the offseason) had such a dramatically negative impact in the locker room like some would suggest, that the team would have started out 0-6, not 6-0.

BroncoBuff
03-30-2010, 08:54 PM
Just to clarify, Drek is correct, Paxton's salary is just 1/3 more than Leach's, ~1m to 750k. Josh obviously has the right to bring in certain core players he values as cornerstones, basically without worrying that his basic philosophies In this case, he signed Paxton and waived Leach almost immediately upon the opening of free agency, giving Leach plenty of time to hook on elsewhere. In fact he probably told Leach before free agency started.

If Josh's decisions creates problems in the lockerroom, which for better or worse this one did, that's on him. Buck stops there.


Really? Who in the NFL can you quote to attest to Leach's long-snapping prowess?
You're kidding, right? Leach's prowess has been attested to, and discussed here, extensively.



****ing long-snapper? We're wadding up our panties over that?
No, YOU'RE wadding up YOUR panties over a long-snapper. The rest of us were having a civil discussion about a long-snapper. And the, per your m.o., you came in and poured expletive-laden anger all over the thread. Now run along ...


Half of you douche-bags didn't know we had a long-snapper before last season. The other half couldn't name ONE single other long-snapper in the entire league.
Careful with the name-calling there, Mr. Happy. We have an OrangeMane Bill of Rights now (much to your chagrin obviously), you gotta watch that stuff.

Requiem
03-31-2010, 12:15 AM
Talked about who? I'm not sure I've really read anything but poster opinion on here regarding Leach's skills comparatively to Paxton's to resolve that he was a better player and the move wasn't worth being made.

HAT
03-31-2010, 12:30 AM
Careful with the name-calling there, Mr. Happy. We have an OrangeMane Bill of Rights now (much to your chagrin obviously), you gotta watch that stuff.

Just to clarify...This board is not moderated.

Blueflame
03-31-2010, 12:34 AM
Just to clarify...This board is not moderated.

Wanna bet? ;D

(gee, it must be gremlins deleting all the spam then....:P)

baja
03-31-2010, 12:39 AM
what spam

Blueflame
03-31-2010, 12:41 AM
what spam

Exactly. ;D

baja
03-31-2010, 12:42 AM
Exactly. ;D
What a great straight man I am huh Blue?

Blueflame
03-31-2010, 12:46 AM
What a great straight man I am huh Blue?

:D (trying to stifle a naughty response).... hehehe

baja
03-31-2010, 12:48 AM
:D (trying to stifle a naughty response).... hehehe


Oh come on post it I won't ban ya....

Blueflame
03-31-2010, 12:52 AM
Oh come on post it I won't ban ya....

:rofl: Yeah, but my naughtiness is probably best kept to myself... ;D

baja
03-31-2010, 12:57 AM
:rofl: Yeah, but my naughtiness is probably best kept to myself... ;D
Now I'm dying to know PM me atleast. ;D

BroncoBuff
03-31-2010, 01:32 AM
what spam

Bump, per request.


Ring any bells?

Drek
03-31-2010, 05:10 AM
Careful with the name-calling there, Mr. Happy. We have an OrangeMane Bill of Rights now (much to your chagrin obviously), you gotta watch that stuff.

When did that happen? I recall Taco asking abou tit, but I'd assume it would've been officially posted somewhere if it was final.

And FYI, any discord bumping Leach for Paxton cause wasn't just a side effect. That initial wave of discord sends a clear message that the new boss is not the same as the old boss. It sets up a perfect locker room atmosphere of putting the previous regime's guys on pins and needles, checking with their new NE transplant counterparts for what they should expect. Then they get the team before player message from every last one of them.

Got to rustle some bushes if you want to make the rats start running.

elsid13
03-31-2010, 05:21 AM
Harris was a huge reason as was the lackluster play of Hamilton and Wiegmann. And our band-aid defensive line that gave out the second half of the season.

I understand and appreciate your concern, but it was well known that Josh was coming into Denver to run both the offense AND defense that he wanted to run. Some might argue that is what caused the rift between McDaniels and Cutler...the fact that McD canned all of Cutler's coaches (namely Bates) in order to implement his system.

Josh doesn't run a ZBS in his offense, but you have to appreciate the fact that he tried to implement it somewhat (although unsuccessfully) by retaining the entire offensive line and some staff. I don't think the fans can expect Josh to come to Denver and completely change his philosophy and playbook to accomodate what Mike left behind. Sure, he should have brought in more OLine talent in FA last year, but perhaps he thought he could get by and was more focused on bringing in defensive FAs, which I think everyone can agree he did a pretty good job on.

I'm not sure why everyone is so focused on the long snapper change. Sure Leach was fine, but it's not like we downgraded and I hardly think it caused any ruccus in the locker room. Do you think the team waited until the bye week to say "Hey, wait a minute, our coach got rid of a perfectly good long snapper a couple months ago...I hope he doesn't get rid of me next". It had no bearing on the way the team played last year.

With that said, there was only so much of the staff and roster that the guy could turn over last offseason. But I think most of the roster decisions that were made last year made this a better team overall. I'm willing to give the guy at least another offseason or two to continue to do what he thinks is necessary to fix the problems with the roster before I conclude that he is destroying the franchise.

Even though the team gave out towards the end, I felt they played much better in those losses than they did in 2008 during the collapse. They destroyed the Giants and Chefs, then lost heartbreakers to the Colts, Raiders, and Eagles. The last Chiefs game was embarrassing, but Jamal Charles played out of his mind and our defensive front had fallen apart. In 2008, our collapse consisted of getting blown out by the Raiders, playing our best game of the year against the Jets, squeeking out a win against the Chefs, getting blown out by the Panthers, getting beat up by the terrible Bills, and getting destroyed by the 8-8 Chargers.

That not exactly true. Both NE and Carolina ran ZBS as well as PB scheme. The three major difference between what Shahanan ran and McDaniels are:

- McDs - runs more traps, pulls and dives. Shanahan was adding more pulls and traps in 08 to the offense
- Shanahan ZBS teams had the backside offense linemen cut the defenders, McD and McCoy don't have their linemen do that.
- Shanahan was more willing to use FB as lead blocker, McDaniels prefers the one back set and have an extra TE inline to help.

LRtagger
03-31-2010, 06:51 AM
That not exactly true. Both NE and Carolina ran ZBS as well as PB scheme. The three major difference between what Shahanan ran and McDaniels are:

- McDs - runs more traps, pulls and dives. Shanahan was adding more pulls and traps in 08 to the offense
- Shanahan ZBS teams had the backside offense linemen cut the defenders, McD and McCoy don't have their linemen do that.
- Shanahan was more willing to use FB as lead blocker, McDaniels prefers the one back set and have an extra TE inline to help.

You're right. I know NE tried to implement some variation of the ZBS, but the offense Josh runs is still primarily a power blocking scheme. While some blocking assignments may be ZBS, Josh's system is nothing close to Mike's. Those small lineman wont work here anymore and the FO is taking the necessary steps to replace them.

montrose
03-31-2010, 08:50 AM
I thought it was well established that the change at the long snapper position was primarilly so that the team would have an emergency G/C instead of an emergency TE.

CEH
03-31-2010, 08:58 AM
Just to clarify, Drek is correct, Paxton's salary is just 1/3 more than Leach's, ~1m to 750k. Josh obviously has the right to bring in certain core players he values as cornerstones, basically without worrying that his basic philosophies In this case, he signed Paxton and waived Leach almost immediately upon the opening of free agency, giving Leach plenty of time to hook on elsewhere. In fact he probably told Leach before free agency started.

If Josh's decisions creates problems in the lockerroom, which for better or worse this one did, that's on him. Buck stops there.



You're kidding, right? Leach's prowess has been attested to, and discussed here, extensively.




No, YOU'RE wadding up YOUR panties over a long-snapper. The rest of us were having a civil discussion about a long-snapper. And the, per your m.o., you came in and poured expletive-laden anger all over the thread. Now run along ...



Careful with the name-calling there, Mr. Happy. We have an OrangeMane Bill of Rights now (much to your chagrin obviously), you gotta watch that stuff.

Just curious where did you guys pull Leach's contract numbers with Denver from?

tsiguy96
03-31-2010, 09:01 AM
I thought it was well established that the change at the long snapper position was primarilly so that the team would have an emergency G/C instead of an emergency TE.

dude, do NOT interrupt when people are grasping for straws for reasons to hate McD. a long snapper is VERY IMPORTANT reason to hate mcd.

strafen
03-31-2010, 09:21 AM
I thought it was well established that the change at the long snapper position was primarilly so that the team would have an emergency G/C instead of an emergency TE.I believe it was Leach who was the back-up OL and TE.
I'm not aware at the moment Paxton can also do those things.

Beantown Bronco
03-31-2010, 09:25 AM
I believe it was Leach who was the back-up OL and TE.
I'm not aware at the moment Paxton can also do those things.

Leach was an emergency TE only.
Paxton is an emergency guard and tackle.

I'm not guessing.

montrose
03-31-2010, 09:25 AM
I believe it was Leach who was the back-up OL and TE.
I'm not aware at the moment Paxton can also do those things.

No, Leach was an emergency TE however Paxton is an emergency C/G (and I think T as well) - Xanders addressed it in his interview with Channel 4 last year when asked why they made the move. He said the team liked having a guy who can play OL in a pinch since the team usually doesn't keep more than 6-7 guys active on game day.

montrose
03-31-2010, 09:27 AM
Leach was an emergency TE only.
Paxton is an emergency guard and tackle.

I'm not guessing.

Shhhhhhhhh. Blue is going to get mad at you for ruining her point that quietly signing a Long Snapper on the 1st day of free agency is what restricted Xanders and McDaniels for going after last year's shi**y DL free agent group. :loopy:

Drek
03-31-2010, 09:38 AM
Just curious where did you guys pull Leach's contract numbers with Denver from?

Didn't need to. Vet minimum for his service time is $750K.

Tombstone RJ
03-31-2010, 09:41 AM
Shhhhhhhhh. Blue is going to get mad at you for ruining her point that quietly signing a Long Snapper on the 1st day of free agency is what restricted Xanders and McDaniels for going after last year's shi**y DL free agent group. :loopy:

I don't think for a moment this is what Blue believes. She's simply using the Leach situation as an example of her distrust in McD. It's simply a manifestation of everything she's afraid of.

Blueflame
03-31-2010, 12:56 PM
Shhhhhhhhh. Blue is going to get mad at you for ruining her point that quietly signing a Long Snapper on the 1st day of free agency is what restricted Xanders and McDaniels for going after last year's shi**y DL free agent group. :loopy:

Know what? If Paxton was any worse (at C/G) than what we saw from Hamilton and Weigmann last season (and he must not have been as good as those guys or he'd have been on the field, right?) then had we needed to depend on him (in an "emergency") we'd probably have been screwed anyway. It's not difficult to conclude that if he were a good "emergency C/G", his sole role with the team wouldn't be "long snapper".... especially if the O-line is struggling (O-line used to be one of our biggest assets; not a liability, but things change...)

LRtagger
03-31-2010, 01:10 PM
Know what? If Paxton was any worse (at C/G) than what we saw from Hamilton and Weigmann last season (and he must not have been as good as those guys or he'd have been on the field, right?) then had we needed to depend on him (in an "emergency") we'd probably have been screwed anyway. It's not difficult to conclude that if he were a good "emergency C/G", his sole role with the team wouldn't be "long snapper".... especially if the O-line is struggling (O-line used to be one of our biggest assets; not a liability, but things change...)

Wait, so are you saying we shouldn't have any backups at any positions because they aren't as good as the guys who are already playing? I'm not sure I understand your point.

The FO thought it more valuable to have a long snapper who could fill in along the OL if necessary over a long snapper who could fill in at the TE spot if necessary. I don't see what the problem with that is.

Blueflame
03-31-2010, 01:57 PM
Wait, so are you saying we shouldn't have any backups at any positions because they aren't as good as the guys who are already playing? I'm not sure I understand your point.

The FO thought it more valuable to have a long snapper who could fill in along the OL if necessary over a long snapper who could fill in at the TE spot if necessary. I don't see what the problem with that is.

I said what I meant to say. He obviously wasn't/isn't that good of an O-lineman and if we ever got "deep enough" into the depth chart for him to see any playing time in that capacity, we'd be hosed anyway.

LRtagger
03-31-2010, 03:44 PM
I said what I meant to say. He obviously wasn't/isn't that good of an O-lineman and if we ever got "deep enough" into the depth chart for him to see any playing time in that capacity, we'd be hosed anyway.

The problem is, I didn't know what you meant to say.

Are you saying it's worthless to have players that are capable of playing an emergency or backup role? Are you saying that once we need to put in emergency or third string players into a game that we might as well just forfeit? I don't understand your logic.

How would having a 4th string TE be a better option to having a 3rd string C/OG? According to you we should cut all 3rd/4th string players because they aren't worth keeping on the roster since they arent good enough to contribute at their respective position(s).

The benefit to having Paxton on the roster is that we don't have to fill a roster spot to carry an additional lineman. Should 2 or 3 of our lineman get hurt in a game, we have the benefit of placing Paxton into the lineup for the remainder of the game. I don't see the downside.

Last offseason, Vic Lombardi interviewed Brett Kern and asked about what he thought about the Paxton signing:

"Kern said at first he was really surprised, but after working with Paxton, he understands. He said that Paxton asked him where he wants the ball, like on the right hip, and then he puts the ball there EVERY time. He said he is an amazing long snapper, and he now understands why they replaced Leach with Paxton."

Blueflame
03-31-2010, 04:06 PM
The problem is, I didn't know what you meant to say.

Are you saying it's worthless to have players that are capable of playing an emergency or backup role? Are you saying that once we need to put in emergency or third string players into a game that we might as well just forfeit? I don't understand your logic.

How would having a 4th string TE be a better option to having a 3rd string C/OG? According to you we should cut all 3rd/4th string players because they aren't worth keeping on the roster since they arent good enough to contribute at their respective position(s).

The benefit to having Paxton on the roster is that we don't have to fill a roster spot to carry an additional lineman. Should 2 or 3 of our lineman get hurt in a game, we have the benefit of placing Paxton into the lineup for the remainder of the game. I don't see the downside.

Last offseason, Vic Lombardi interviewed Brett Kern and asked about what he thought about the Paxton signing:

"Kern said at first he was really surprised, but after working with Paxton, he understands. He said that Paxton asked him where he wants the ball, like on the right hip, and then he puts the ball there EVERY time. He said he is an amazing long snapper, and he now understands why they replaced Leach with Paxton."

While we of course need O-line depth, Paxton's value as an "emergency" O-lineman is very minimal (because he's obviously not very good as an O-lineman). So the point (that he could perhaps someday have significant value in that role) is moot (IMHO).

LRtagger
03-31-2010, 04:56 PM
While we of course need O-line depth, Paxton's value as an "emergency" O-lineman is very minimal (because he's obviously not very good as an O-lineman). So the point (that he could perhaps someday have significant value in that role) is moot (IMHO).

That's what I mean. How do you obviously know that he is not good enough to fill in if an emergency situation were to arise? He may not be good enough to start, but I don't see how having a player who could fill in as a backup (allowing us to free up a roster spot for another position) is a bad thing.

It doesn't have anything to do with him perhaps, someday being an offensive lineman. He has value NOW in that he could step in and fill a role if the team were in a position to need it. The same way that Tom Brandy has value as a 3rd string QB in that he could step in and play should the need arise.

Blueflame
03-31-2010, 05:10 PM
That's what I mean. How do you obviously know that he is not good enough to fill in if an emergency situation were to arise? He may not be good enough to start, but I don't see how having a player who could fill in as a backup (allowing us to free up a roster spot for another position) is a bad thing.

It doesn't have anything to do with him perhaps, someday being an offensive lineman. He has value NOW in that he could step in and fill a role if the team were in a position to need it. The same way that Tom Brandy has value as a 3rd string QB in that he could step in and play should the need arise.

Logic would suggest that if he were, in fact, good enough to fill in, he would be higher on the depth chart. I never said that having another backup O-lineman was "a bad thing"... just that his value in that capacity is most likely minimal.... his primary value (same as Leach's) is as a long snapper.

Requiem
03-31-2010, 05:14 PM
Montrose pretty much painted the picture clear and Blue still finds something stupid to rattle on about. Wow.

Blueflame
03-31-2010, 05:21 PM
Montrose pretty much painted the picture clear and Blue still finds something stupid to rattle on about. Wow.

... and Req chimes in with another whine. Oh, well.

LRtagger
03-31-2010, 05:41 PM
Logic would suggest that if he were, in fact, good enough to fill in, he would be higher on the depth chart. I never said that having another backup O-lineman was "a bad thing"... just that his value in that capacity is most likely minimal.... his primary value (same as Leach's) is as a long snapper.

Logic suggests that if you are last on the depth chart that you are not good enough to fill in?

Logic would suggest that if you are not on the roster you are not good enough to fill in. If a player is on an NFL team's depth chart in any capacity, then they are obviously good enough to fill in.

Paxton is a better long snapper, and in a backup capacity provides better value as a backup OLineman than Leach did as a backup TE. The salary difference is minimal. People act like we are paying Paxton twice what we were paying Leach.

Blueflame
03-31-2010, 05:50 PM
Logic suggests that if you are last on the depth chart that you are not good enough to fill in?

Logic would suggest that if you are not on the roster you are not good enough to fill in. If a player is on an NFL team's depth chart in any capacity, then they are obviously good enough to fill in.

Paxton is a better long snapper, and in a backup capacity provides better value as a backup OLineman than Leach did as a backup TE. The salary difference is minimal. People act like we are paying Paxton twice what we were paying Leach.

Logic suggests that if you are last on the depth chart, you are not very likely to have much opportunity to fill in. If Paxton's only role was as O-line depth, he probably wouldn't make it through roster cuts. His value... as I stated earlier... like Leach's... is as a long snapper. And my contention is that the two long snappers are/were roughly equal. It's difficult to "improve on" a long snapper who never had a bad snap...

Mr.Meanie
03-31-2010, 05:57 PM
Logic suggests that if you are last on the depth chart, you are not very likely to have much opportunity to fill in. If Paxton's only role was as O-line depth, he probably wouldn't make it through roster cuts. His value... as I stated earlier... like Leach's... is as a long snapper. And my contention is that the two long snappers are/were roughly equal. It's difficult to "improve on" a long snapper who never had a bad snap...

Why do you care? If anything it was a lateral move, and it brought someone who was familiar with the system and could be a steadying locker room presence with a brand new coaching regime.

If it didn't downgrade the position, didn't cost a ton more, and added to the locker room... how is that possibly a bad thing?

Blueflame
03-31-2010, 06:02 PM
Why do you care? If anything it was a lateral move, and it brought someone who was familiar with the system and could be a steadying locker room presence with a brand new coaching regime.

If it didn't downgrade the position, didn't cost a ton more, and added to the locker room... how is that possibly a bad thing?

I care because I love the Broncos, of course. The team had other needs that were (IMO) more "pressing".

Popps
03-31-2010, 06:02 PM
We're still talking about a long-snapper, right?

Just checking.

Long-snapper?


When does the groundskeeper debate start? Don't want to miss that.

Mr.Meanie
03-31-2010, 06:04 PM
I care because I love the Broncos, of course. The team had other needs that were (IMO) more "pressing".

Needs that were ignored because of that move?

Blueflame
03-31-2010, 06:08 PM
Needs that were ignored because of that move?

Well, let's just say that... like the OP article's author... I question why an unnecessary long snapper change would be one of the first moves a rookie head coach made.

DBroncos4life
03-31-2010, 06:20 PM
LRtagger come on man if we ever got to a position we had to put Paxton in the game along the O-Line the game is lost so his value to play on the line is over blown. It's not like Leach would have been out doing much if we had to get him on the field either. Odds are we would have went 4 or 5 wide the rest of the game without our first three or so TE's.

tsiguy96
03-31-2010, 06:24 PM
good god, hes a longsnapper. who cares. if you are so hung up on the fact that mcdaniels brought in a longsnapper you need to readjust priorities. its not YOUR money that paid for leach, he doesnt make the team any worse, hes a longsnapper.

Blueflame
03-31-2010, 06:30 PM
good god, hes a longsnapper. who cares. if you are so hung up on the fact that mcdaniels brought in a longsnapper you need to readjust priorities. its not YOUR money that paid for leach, he doesnt make the team any worse, hes a longsnapper.

Nonetheless, Tsi... it's OK to question moves made by a rookie HC... and even to disagree with some of his decisions. He's human and inexperienced at the job he's doing... he's going to make some mistakes.

baja
03-31-2010, 06:30 PM
Well, let's just say that... like the OP article's author... I question why an unnecessary long snapper change would be one of the first moves a rookie head coach made.

Consider this Blue,lets say you got a great job offer with a company you never worked for before and this job offer was at the pinnacle of your field so much so that there were only 32 jobs like it in the whole world. You know this job is highly performance related and you had only a short time to prove your worth. You have a chance to bring in a guy you have worked with for years that happened to be at a much lesser position but you knew that he would have your back in the office, a guy that understood and agreed with your philosophy of how you expected the office to function and you knew he would be respected by his new fellow workers and they would be likely to listen him as he explained your ways. Now this guy would cost a little more that the guy already employed at that position but your trusted underling's value to you would be priceless. Would you hire this guy you felt was crucial to you transitioning to this new position for a marginal increase in cost ?

DBroncos4life
03-31-2010, 06:34 PM
Consider this Blue,lets say you got a great job offer with a company you never worked for before and this job offer was at the pinnacle of your field so much so that there were only 32 jobs like it in the whole world. You know this job is highly performance related and you had only a short time to prove your worth. You have a chance to bring in a guy you have worked with for years that happened to be at a much lesser position but you knew that he would have your back in the office, a guy that understood and agreed with your philosophy of how you expected the office to function and you knew he would be respected by his new fellow workers and they would be likely to listen him as he explained your ways. Now this guy would cost a little more that the guy already employed at that position but your trusted underling's value to you would be priceless. Would you hire this guy you felt was crucial to you transitioning to this new position for a marginal increase in cost ?

Or how about this. Would you trade a nice car you already own for the same make, model, and mileage of a car and take on more payments because it has a moon roof?

Blueflame
03-31-2010, 06:39 PM
Consider this Blue,lets say you got a great job offer with a company you never worked for before and this job offer was at the pinnacle of your field so much so that there were only 32 jobs like it in the whole world. You know this job is highly performance related and you had only a short time to prove your worth. You have a chance to bring in a guy you have worked with for years that happened to be at a much lesser position but you knew that he would have your back in the office, a guy that understood and agreed with your philosophy of how you expected the office to function and you knew he would be respected by his new fellow workers and they would be likely to listen him as he explained your ways. Now this guy would cost a little more that the guy already employed at that position but your trusted underling's value to you would be priceless. Would you hire this guy you felt was crucial to you transitioning to this new position for a marginal increase in cost ?

Because of the necessity of firing another (equally qualified) individual who had tenure in the office, I'm not sure I would. Of course, I also have a fairly strong aversion to butt-kissers even when the butt in question is mine... so no. I don't think I'd pay more just to have a brown-noser on my office staff.

DBroncos4life
03-31-2010, 06:42 PM
How the hell is a LS going to help the transition between Shanahans/McDaniels system anyways?

baja
03-31-2010, 06:50 PM
Because of the necessity of firing another (equally qualified) individual who had tenure in the office, I'm not sure I would. Of course, I also have a fairly strong aversion to butt-kissers even when the butt in question is mine... so no. I don't think I'd pay more just to have a brown-noser on my office staff.

OK I give up - lets talk about those D cups of yours. ;D

Blueflame
03-31-2010, 06:52 PM
OK I give up - lets talk about those D cups of yours. ;D

:approve: ^5

montrose
03-31-2010, 09:58 PM
Emergency players aren't there to compete for starting positions, in fact when Leach was here the coaching staff used to panic when he was taking TE reps for fear he'd get hurt and couldn't snap. As an emergency OL, if more than 2 guys go down in a game - Lonnie could step in and play some snaps. So the Broncos signed a proven long snapper who could fill that emergency role which allowed them to keep one less OL active on gameday and get another guy on the field that could play special teams.

DBroncos4life
03-31-2010, 10:17 PM
Emergency players aren't there to compete for starting positions, in fact when Leach was here the coaching staff used to panic when he was taking TE reps for fear he'd get hurt and couldn't snap. As an emergency OL, if more than 2 guys go down in a game - Lonnie could step in and play some snaps. So the Broncos signed a proven long snapper who could fill that emergency role which allowed them to keep one less OL active on gameday and get another guy on the field that could play special teams.

So Leach could get hurt taking snaps but Paxton can't? I mean really come on what would the odds be EITHER player touched the field after the amount of players that would have to get hurt in order to force one of them into playing time?

strafen
03-31-2010, 10:18 PM
So Leach could get hurt taking snaps but Paxton can't? I mean really come on what would the odds be EITHER player touched the field after the amount of players that would have to get hurt in order to force one of them into playing time?You took the words right out of my mouth... :thumbsup:

montrose
03-31-2010, 10:38 PM
So Leach could get hurt taking snaps but Paxton can't? I mean really come on what would the odds be EITHER player touched the field after the amount of players that would have to get hurt in order to force one of them into playing time?

I was just recalling that during practices the coaches didn't want Leach getting hurt (and I'm sure they wouldn't want Paxton getting hurt either) to illustrate the importance of their snapping and how they wouldn't be pushing for playing time at the C/G or TE positions, respectively, because of it. The reality is that two OL going down in a game is not out of the question - Wiegmann and Hamilton could've ran into each other and been injured on the same play - forcing an emergency OL (in this case Paxton) onto the field.

The point here, as was made when the move was made, is that having a LS that could serve as an emergency OL gave the team better flexibility on gameday. If Leach were still around, you may have had to keep 3 backup OL active (lets say Hochstein, Olsen and Gorin) instead of 2 - that lets you keep a guy like Josh Barrett or Kenny McKinley up on gameday for special teams purposes even though they're not really part of the offensive or defensive rotation. It was a very wise move.

baja
03-31-2010, 10:49 PM
I was just recalling that during practices the coaches didn't want Leach getting hurt (and I'm sure they wouldn't want Paxton getting hurt either) to illustrate the importance of their snapping and how they wouldn't be pushing for playing time at the C/G or TE positions, respectively, because of it. The reality is that two OL going down in a game is not out of the question - Wiegmann and Hamilton could've ran into each other and been injured on the same play - forcing an emergency OL (in this case Paxton) onto the field.

The point here, as was made when the move was made, is that having a LS that could serve as an emergency OL gave the team better flexibility on gameday. If Leach were still around, you may have had to keep 3 backup OL active (lets say Hochstein, Olsen and Gorin) instead of 2 - that lets you keep a guy like Josh Barrett or Kenny McKinley up on gameday for special teams purposes even though they're not really part of the offensive or defensive rotation. It was a very wise move.


Read this Blue!

strafen
03-31-2010, 10:54 PM
I was just recalling that during practices the coaches didn't want Leach getting hurt (and I'm sure they wouldn't want Paxton getting hurt either) to illustrate the importance of their snapping and how they wouldn't be pushing for playing time at the C/G or TE positions, respectively, because of it. The reality is that two OL going down in a game is not out of the question - Wiegmann and Hamilton could've ran into each other and been injured on the same play - forcing an emergency OL (in this case Paxton) onto the field.

The point here, as was made when the move was made, is that having a LS that could serve as an emergency OL gave the team better flexibility on gameday. If Leach were still around, you may have had to keep 3 backup OL active (lets say Hochstein, Olsen and Gorin) instead of 2 - that lets you keep a guy like Josh Barrett or Kenny McKinley up on gameday for special teams purposes even though they're not really part of the offensive or defensive rotation. It was a very wise move.Eventhough what you say makes sense (in hindsight), I really doubt that kind of reasoning was put in place to bring Paxton in, and hence make that kind of justification as the main reason for the signing.
I think it was more about McDaniels bringing in a "friend" more than he giving it much thought from a strategic point of view...

baja
03-31-2010, 10:59 PM
Eventhough what you say makes sense (in hindsight), I really doubt that kind of reasoning was put in place to bring Paxton in, and hence make that kind of justification as the main reason for the signing.
I think it was more about McDaniels bringing in a "friend" more than he giving it much thought from a strategic point of view...

In hindsight I think you are a douche

Dagmar
03-31-2010, 11:04 PM
In hindsight I think you are a douche

Wow, I have him on ignore but wow, our head coach, paid millions of dollars isn't as smart as montrose an internet poster (an excellent poster btw). Bro's before sense for McDaniels!

This, is what dragster does. He does it deliberately to get a response, straight up trolling. Sigh. At least Blueflame doesn't do that. Remember his vacation? It was glorious.

LRtagger
04-01-2010, 07:30 AM
LRtagger come on man if we ever got to a position we had to put Paxton in the game along the O-Line the game is lost so his value to play on the line is over blown. It's not like Leach would have been out doing much if we had to get him on the field either. Odds are we would have went 4 or 5 wide the rest of the game without our first three or so TE's.

That's not the point. The point is Paxton allows us to carry one less scrub OLineman on gamedays.

Leach doesn't do that because we sometimes run 2 and 3 TE sets. We have three TE's on the roster.

I don't see what is so hard to understand. Paxton being on the roster frees up an additional roster spot for a STer or additional WR. Regardless of whether Paxton is good as an OLineman or not, you have to have a player on the roster in the unlikely event that two interior olineman go down in one game. Would you rather carry an extra scrub and take up a roster spot, or have a utility guy fill in on the depth chart and open up another roster spot?

It's a no brainer.

montrose
04-01-2010, 07:51 AM
Eventhough what you say makes sense (in hindsight), I really doubt that kind of reasoning was put in place to bring Paxton in, and hence make that kind of justification as the main reason for the signing.
I think it was more about McDaniels bringing in a "friend" more than he giving it much thought from a strategic point of view...

No, Xanders specifically referenced it in his first long interview with Channel 4 - I remember because I was puzzled by the move originally as well but after explanation it made sense to me.

CEH
04-01-2010, 09:34 AM
I can see both sides of the argument so I'll argue the side that doesn't have as many proponents

My question is how many player's on the team can do Paxton or Leach's job?
Zero although there has to be an emergency backup.

How many games in the NFL are lost by 1-3 points? A lot
How many of you would be OK with the backup LS playing with the game on the line? Probably not many

My point is I'm not buying that Paxton was signed to allow the Broncos more flexibility with it's Pro Personal packages because I think playing the LS in an emergency situation puts the team at risk at his primary position therefore I would not be too concerned whether the LS is a TE or C/G. He is not going to play anyways and to assume he will would not he high on my list of why he is on the team

How long did it take Leach to find a job. 1 or 2 days. There are only a handful of quality long snappers in the league so replacing one as your first order of business seems strange to me. Let alone one from your former team.

There are 5-6 new coaches that come into the NFL every year. How many replace the long snapper on the first day of FA? I can't recall one. Is McD a genius and so far ahead of everyone else?

Now you get to the signing bonus. Sure the net result is the same $750K vs $1MM but Bowlen had to write a check for a $1MM up front vs 16 checks for $47K. That is a million out of his pot of money for signing bonuses and we all know the SB is the only thing a FA cares about. To deplete from this bucket of money for a LS again seems odd.

According to TheFan, McD called DG to his office early on last year to make sure he was "on board" . This I heard on from Sandy Clough or Alfred Williams. Not a reach to put 2 and 2 together since both DG and Alfred are CU alums

Anyone care to rationalize why Lamont Jordan held a roster spot last year other than to be a NE guy?

I don't really care if Paxton or Leach is on the team but I see enough evidence to say that the Paxton signing was more about bringing in a NE guy vs upgrading the football team.

On the flip side, I heard Xander's speak in person last year before the practice at Inveso and he insinuated that part of Prater's problems in '08 was due to the LS. But after the Cutler fiasco, the FO was under alot of scrunity from fans and they have to rationalize every move more than in past seasons

Prater did have a better year. Was this partly due to Paxton. Maybe. I'm not a ST coach so I can't answer that. If so it might have been a shrewd move.

Like I said I can see both sides.

chex
04-01-2010, 09:50 AM
Well, for whatever the reason, I don't understand what the big deal is about. It's not like Leach was this icon in Denver that shook the fanbase to its core when he got released. Okay, so Paxton was brought in. Coaches do things like this all the time. Parcells carries his favorites with him whenever he moves. Holmgren had all those QB's on his roster and he traded for Seneca Wallace. Like I said, this happens all the time. The only thing new about it is people are getting in an uproar because a LS was replaced. Has it really come to this? ???:deadhorse

Drek
04-01-2010, 10:33 AM
Anyone care to rationalize why Lamont Jordan held a roster spot last year other than to be a NE guy?


Sure.

There is only a finite number of RBs who knew the offensive system we where installing and would also accept a backup role.

Lamont Jordan and Corey Dillon basically comprise that entire list. Dillon isn't playing football anymore.

Jordan was brought in for the same reason we had Darius Walker stashed on the practice squad. He had some general idea of the system from his days at Notre Dame and he was available and PS eligible.

Our #3 wasn't going to see many snaps even in practice last year, with both Buckhalter and Moreno learning the system. We needed an emergency backup who would at least know his assignments without much coaching.

Now in 2010 we have Buckhalter and Moreno in the system and can go looking at non-system guys we can coach up.

You can't turn over and coach up an entire positional unit in a single off-season, no matter how much it might need it. So getting even C grade talent that is familiar with the system makes transitioning much easier.

Cito Pelon
04-01-2010, 11:11 AM
This Leach-Paxton brouhaha is simply a method to vilify McDanders. Few people gave a damn about Mike Leach until McD cut him.

In fact, year after year posters here wanted to cut Leach because he was deemed to be taking up a valuable roster spot.

I thought at the time why try to fix it if it ain't broke, but realized it wasn't all that big of a deal. And I was one of the few people that supported Leach over the years when people wanted to cut him.

strafen
04-01-2010, 11:32 AM
This Leach-Paxton brouhaha is simply a method to vilify McDanders. Few people gave a damn about Mike Leach until McD cut him.

In fact, year after year posters here wanted to cut Leach because he was deemed to be taking up a valuable roster spot.

I thought at the time why try to fix it if it ain't broke, but realized it wasn't all that big of a deal. And I was one of the few people that supported Leach over the years when people wanted to cut him.If it sounds to you like this is a simply method to vilify McDaniels, then it may well be, if that's how you want to look at it.
The bottom line is, this was a move we didn't have to make, period.
By the same token, had Leach not been cut, people here would've never been talking how this move needed to be made by the lame excuses we've heard so far...
And you're right, don't fix what it ain't broke, and it's still true in this case to this day...

DBroncos4life
04-01-2010, 11:46 AM
That's not the point. The point is Paxton allows us to carry one less scrub OLineman on gamedays.

Leach doesn't do that because we sometimes run 2 and 3 TE sets. We have three TE's on the roster.

I don't see what is so hard to understand. Paxton being on the roster frees up an additional roster spot for a STer or additional WR. Regardless of whether Paxton is good as an OLineman or not, you have to have a player on the roster in the unlikely event that two interior olineman go down in one game. Would you rather carry an extra scrub and take up a roster spot, or have a utility guy fill in on the depth chart and open up another roster spot?

It's a no brainer.

Dude Lonie Paxton is 260 pounds. What position on the O-Line is he going to come in and play and give us a chance to win?

When it comes down to a roster spot I would rather it go to someone that gives us the BEST chance to win the game if that person is needed to fill in.

I agree 100% with the concept of the idea, where I differ is I know that a 260 pound guy isn't going to do much for us on the O-line if for some reason he is needed. I can guarantee that the first time that Paxton is ever needed in a game, the following week we will be dressing one more O-line player.

Lev Vyvanse
04-01-2010, 12:02 PM
Dude Lonie Paxton is 260 pounds. What position on the O-Line is he going to come in and play and give us a chance to win?


Not that it matters but we have him listed at 280.

Dagmar
04-01-2010, 12:05 PM
If it sounds to you like this is a simply method to vilify McDaniels, then it may well be, if that's how you want to look at it.



Says the guy who said Eventhough what you say makes sense (in hindsight), I really doubt that kind of reasoning was put in place to bring Paxton in, and hence make that kind of justification as the main reason for the signing.
I think it was more about McDaniels bringing in a "friend" more than he giving it much thought from a strategic point of view...

DBroncos4life
04-01-2010, 12:46 PM
Not that it matters but we have him listed at 280.

The Pats had him listed at 260 in 08.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=nfl&id=3572030

http://www.patriots.com/team/index.cfm?ac=playerbio&bio=1631

Wikipedia has him at 260 as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonie_Paxton

Lev Vyvanse
04-01-2010, 01:25 PM
Wikipedia has him at 260 as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonie_Paxton

Says 310. Wow thats pretty good size.

DBroncos4life
04-01-2010, 02:18 PM
Says 310. Wow thats pretty good size.

Right. Yahoo has him listed at 260 as well.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/5317

http://www.freebase.com/view/en/lonie_paxton
260

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/players/1697/Lonie_Paxton
260

The list goes on and on. If you want to believe he is 280 be my guest, the fact that the Pats had him listed at 260 and pretty much every where else has him listed at 260 means he is closer to 260 then 280.

Rabb
04-01-2010, 02:25 PM
you know it's a slow news day when we are arguing over Lonie ****ing Paxton's actual weight

DBroncos4life
04-01-2010, 02:30 PM
you know it's a slow news day when we are arguing over Lonie ****ing Paxton's actual weight

All I am saying it's great in theory that Paxton could "fill" in if we needed him to but really there in no place for him. He is too small. He would have trouble at center. Unlike long snapping people can line up over him and I doubt he would provide any sort of protection for very long. Just my opinion.

Lev Vyvanse
04-01-2010, 02:31 PM
Right. Yahoo has him listed at 260 as well.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/5317

http://www.freebase.com/view/en/lonie_paxton
260

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/players/1697/Lonie_Paxton
260

The list goes on and on. If you want to believe he is 280 be my guest, the fact that the Pats had him listed at 260 and pretty much every where else has him listed at 260 means he is closer to 260 then 280.
These sites might not be as reputable as freebase.com but they all have him at 281.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=2418
http://www.nfl.com/players/loniepaxton/profile?id=PAX622937
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/players/playerpage/192746/lonie-paxton

Beantown Bronco
04-01-2010, 02:34 PM
I doubt he would provide any sort of protection for very long. Just my opinion.

So what you're saying is he would've fit right in with the 2009 OLine then?

Mr.Meanie
04-01-2010, 02:43 PM
These sites might not be as reputable as freebase.com but they all have him at 281.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=2418
http://www.nfl.com/players/loniepaxton/profile?id=PAX622937
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/players/playerpage/192746/lonie-paxton

Ha!

Blueflame
04-01-2010, 02:43 PM
I can see both sides of the argument so I'll argue the side that doesn't have as many proponents

My question is how many player's on the team can do Paxton or Leach's job?
Zero although there has to be an emergency backup.

How many games in the NFL are lost by 1-3 points? A lot
How many of you would be OK with the backup LS playing with the game on the line? Probably not many

My point is I'm not buying that Paxton was signed to allow the Broncos more flexibility with it's Pro Personal packages because I think playing the LS in an emergency situation puts the team at risk at his primary position therefore I would not be too concerned whether the LS is a TE or C/G. He is not going to play anyways and to assume he will would not he high on my list of why he is on the team

How long did it take Leach to find a job. 1 or 2 days. There are only a handful of quality long snappers in the league so replacing one as your first order of business seems strange to me. Let alone one from your former team.

There are 5-6 new coaches that come into the NFL every year. How many replace the long snapper on the first day of FA? I can't recall one. Is McD a genius and so far ahead of everyone else?

Now you get to the signing bonus. Sure the net result is the same $750K vs $1MM but Bowlen had to write a check for a $1MM up front vs 16 checks for $47K. That is a million out of his pot of money for signing bonuses and we all know the SB is the only thing a FA cares about. To deplete from this bucket of money for a LS again seems odd.

According to TheFan, McD called DG to his office early on last year to make sure he was "on board" . This I heard on from Sandy Clough or Alfred Williams. Not a reach to put 2 and 2 together since both DG and Alfred are CU alums

Anyone care to rationalize why Lamont Jordan held a roster spot last year other than to be a NE guy?

I don't really care if Paxton or Leach is on the team but I see enough evidence to say that the Paxton signing was more about bringing in a NE guy vs upgrading the football team.

On the flip side, I heard Xander's speak in person last year before the practice at Inveso and he insinuated that part of Prater's problems in '08 was due to the LS. But after the Cutler fiasco, the FO was under alot of scrunity from fans and they have to rationalize every move more than in past seasons

Prater did have a better year. Was this partly due to Paxton. Maybe. I'm not a ST coach so I can't answer that. If so it might have been a shrewd move.

Like I said I can see both sides.

Good post... it pretty much sums up the way I look at things too.

baja
04-01-2010, 03:05 PM
Good post... it pretty much sums up the way I look at things too.


How convenient Blue, in you dozens of posts on this limited subject you never once mention several of the points CEH reasoned in his post above yet you say after reading his post that you have had the same reasoning all along. Guess you must have been saving those more powerful arguments for later use in your month long debate.

DBroncos4life
04-01-2010, 03:12 PM
These sites might not be as reputable as freebase.com but they all have him at 281.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=2418
http://www.nfl.com/players/loniepaxton/profile?id=PAX622937
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/players/playerpage/192746/lonie-paxton

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?...nfl&id=3572030
http://www.patriots.com/team/index.cfm?ac=playerbio&bio=1631
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/5317
http://www.patriots.com/news/index.cfm?ac=generalnewsdetail&pid=3646&pcid=0


Paxton, 24, originally joined the Patriots as a rookie free agent from Sacramento State on April 19, 2000 and has appeared in 51 consecutive games, including three playoff games, since then. The 6-foot-2-inch, 260-pound long snapper handles those responsibilities for all punts, field goals and extra points. In three years, he has delivered 431 snaps with just three blocked kicks

DBroncos4life
04-01-2010, 03:16 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/player/lonie-paxton/splits/70176
260

DBroncos4life
04-01-2010, 03:21 PM
For New England, Paxton makes special teams a snap
Updated 1/30/2008 1:42 AM | Comments 2 | Recommend 1 E-mail | Save | Print | Reprints & Permissions | Subscribe to stories like this



By Scott Zucker, USA TODAY
GLENDALE, Ariz. — There is perhaps no surer sign that Super Bowl week is upon us, than a story about a long snapper.

So why write about a guy who's anonymous even in the low-profile world of special-teams players? Well, while New England's Lonie Paxton did not start one of the 125 NFL games he's played in, the eighth-year specialist out of Sacramento State does have three Super Bowl rings to his credit.

Paxton, who signed as a rookie free agent in 2000, doesn't mind that he hasn't enjoyed quite the same recognition as some of the other Patriots veterans who have been there throughout their Super Bowl runs.

"I have the same amount of fun," said the 6-2, 260-pounder as he relaxed on the bleachers during Tuesday's media day, watching his more famous teammates field questions from their own podiums. "Besides, I kind of like flying under the radar."

Paxton, also a long snapper in college, began experimenting with the position while in high school in Corona, Calif.

"I was a guard and center, and I started working on it on during the weekends," he said. "Now it's my job."

It's a job he works hard at, making 200 to 300 snaps a day in training camp while executing 20 to 30 on field goals and 20 to 30 on punts each practice during the regular season.

"He's one of the best, a pleasure to work with," punter Chris Hanson said. "He's a great teammate and a real character off the field. We work every day at practice and sometimes stay after practice, but you don't want to tire out his arms for when you really need them."

Hanson, a ninth-year NFL veteran, is in his first season with the Patriots and serves as the holder on field goals and extra points in addition to his punting duties. He says there was a very short period of adjustment between him, Paxton and kicker Stephen Gostkowski.

"It's just about finding a rhythm," Hanson said. "What it comes down to is I trust him and Stephen trusts me."

Clearly Patriots coach Bill Belichick trusts Paxton, who, with the exception of the final three games and postseason in 2003 when he was injured, has snapped on every punt, extra point and field goal since joining the team.

His skills aren't limited to snapping. Paxton does occasionally contribute in other areas.

He's recorded 13 regular-season tackles, including two this season. But for all of those accomplishments he probably will be best remembered by fans for a childlike moment back in his second season.

After Adam Vinatieri's game-winning field goal in a January 2002 playoff game against the Oakland Raiders, Paxton headed to the end zone in snow-covered Foxborough and formed a snow angel.

"Some of us talked about doing snow angels in the parking lot after the game if we won," he recalled. "After the kick, I saw I had a straight shot to the end zone, so I went for it."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/patriots/2008-01-29-patriotspaxton_N.htm