PDA

View Full Version : Random Thoughs about Shanahan, McDaniels and moving on


bloodsunday
04-21-2010, 11:42 AM
After reflecting on our season and the upheaval in our organization, I've come to a couple of conclusions:

1) It was without a doubt time to move on from Mike Shanahan (put aside who we hired for the moment). His wasteful spending and constant draft failings were compounding and killing us. (See dead money last year). Shanahan made his reputation in Denver by being ahead of the curve in FA (it started in 93 and he became our HC in 95) by finding quality "role" players like McCaffrey, Romanowski, etc.... But now the rest of the league sees that strategy as status quo in FA and the draft has once again become the best way to build your team. What's more, Shanahan refused to build this team at the most important point of football -- the line of scrimmage. Drafting late round, under-sized offensive lineman to run a zone-blocking scheme became a stale idea and he didn't adapt. I think he failed to recognize that the players he had when he first implemented the zone-blocking scheme were much better than "system" players.

2) I think Mike will be a better coach for this transition and having a chance to step back.

3) Shanahan never proved he could win without Elway.

4) Why are people so afraid of change? This organization has one exactly 1 playoff game and 1 division in more than a decade? Yes change comes with risk, but is a mediocre status quo really any better? McDaniels may not be the answer, but we won't have to continue watching 280 offensive lineman get flogged in the redzone, RB that look like Gale Sayers between the 20's and disappear and cannot finish, or a rotating door on defensive schemes.

5) Why do people see that the answer is 4 and assume the question was "what's 2 + 2?". When McDaniels was asked if he was surprised that Denver didn't hire a "defensive-minded head coach", he responded by saying that he was hired to coach the entire football team. To me, that was one of the most impressive things that McDaniels said when he was introduced as head coach. Everyone around here belly-ached about the defense and assumed we would hire "Spagnolo" and just leave the offense alone. What's more, everyone assumed that hiring McDaniels was about the offense because of the 2007 Patriots. But, people forget two things: 1) McDaniels started in NE as a defensive coach and 2) NE is not a perennial super power on offense (2007 aside). In fact, I would say that it's my opinion they buttered their bread on defense and had timely/clutch offense. So isn't it possible that maybe we got a head coach because he knows defense? I also think that over time we'll find he will put much more emphasis on special teams than Shanahan ever did, particularly late in his tenure.

6) This is really a summary of all these things, but in general I like the "plan" that this organization has, at least as I perceive it. It's difficult to know if McDaniels will succeed or fail, but in general I agree with his approach: 1) build the team at the line of scrimmage 2) build the core of the team through the draft 3) improve the run defense (and really the defense overall) 4) build a team first approach.

doonwise
04-21-2010, 12:49 PM
Your post is way to rational and will not be appreciated. That being said, I completely agree with every single point you made.

crush17
04-21-2010, 12:56 PM
Agreed on all points.

Ray Finkle
04-21-2010, 12:57 PM
I agree with your post.....

It is funny how perception works. In DC, Shanny has taken a top 5 D and alienated it's "star" player, and tried to trade one of it's top DE's. He then goes and brings in a slew of RB's (including Torain) to battle for spots.

He is lauded for righting the ship.....Josh does something similar and is an idiot....

mkporter
04-21-2010, 01:18 PM
I agree with most of your points except #3. Shanny was 39-15 (regular season) with Jake. Yeah, he didn't win any super bowls, but that counts as winning with another QB.

rastaman
04-21-2010, 01:20 PM
Bill Walsh said it best. A HC should only stay with the same team for 10 years max. After that its time to move on.

Ray Finkle
04-21-2010, 01:22 PM
This message is hidden because rastaman is on your ignore list.

:haw!::haw!::haw!::haw!::haw!::haw!::haw!:

bpc
04-21-2010, 01:46 PM
After reflecting on our season and the upheaval in our organization, I've come to a couple of conclusions:

1) It was without a doubt time to move on from Mike Shanahan (put aside who we hired for the moment). His wasteful spending and constant draft failings were compounding and killing us. (See dead money last year). Shanahan made his reputation in Denver by being ahead of the curve in FA (it started in 93 and he became our HC in 95) by finding quality "role" players like McCaffrey, Romanowski, etc.... But now the rest of the league sees that strategy as status quo in FA and the draft has once again become the best way to build your team. What's more, Shanahan refused to build this team at the most important point of football -- the line of scrimmage. Drafting late round, under-sized offensive lineman to run a zone-blocking scheme became a stale idea and he didn't adapt. I think he failed to recognize that the players he had when he first implemented the zone-blocking scheme were much better than "system" players.

2) I think Mike will be a better coach for this transition and having a chance to step back.

3) Shanahan never proved he could win without Elway.

4) Why are people so afraid of change? This organization has one exactly 1 playoff game and 1 division in more than a decade? Yes change comes with risk, but is a mediocre status quo really any better? McDaniels may not be the answer, but we won't have to continue watching 280 offensive lineman get flogged in the redzone, RB that look like Gale Sayers between the 20's and disappear and cannot finish, or a rotating door on defensive schemes.

5) Why do people see that the answer is 4 and assume the question was "what's 2 + 2?". When McDaniels was asked if he was surprised that Denver didn't hire a "defensive-minded head coach", he responded by saying that he was hired to coach the entire football team. To me, that was one of the most impressive things that McDaniels said when he was introduced as head coach. Everyone around here belly-ached about the defense and assumed we would hire "Spagnolo" and just leave the offense alone. What's more, everyone assumed that hiring McDaniels was about the offense because of the 2007 Patriots. But, people forget two things: 1) McDaniels started in NE as a defensive coach and 2) NE is not a perennial super power on offense (2007 aside). In fact, I would say that it's my opinion they buttered their bread on defense and had timely/clutch offense. So isn't it possible that maybe we got a head coach because he knows defense? I also think that over time we'll find he will put much more emphasis on special teams than Shanahan ever did, particularly late in his tenure.

6) This is really a summary of all these things, but in general I like the "plan" that this organization has, at least as I perceive it. It's difficult to know if McDaniels will succeed or fail, but in general I agree with his approach: 1) build the team at the line of scrimmage 2) build the core of the team through the draft 3) improve the run defense (and really the defense overall) 4) build a team first approach.

1. Partially Agree - Shanahan could have definitely tightened up the ship on spending. Draft picks are what they are though... you can revamp the FO and get better scouting, which allow for better drafting. It could be argued this is what was taking place during Mike's last three years IMO. Unfortunately, his veteran squad in 2005 turned over really quick through age, death, and injury. You can't say he didn't invest in the OL, because we took George Foster in what, 2004 with our 1st round pick and Ryan Clady just a few years ago. You can criticize the scouting but he was moving more towards what you are stating within the OL. Clady/Harris/Kuper were paying off huge dividends as recent as Mike's last year here. While not having a face on the running game, it was still producing.

2. Agree.

3. Disagree. You are right in the sense that he could never win a SUPER BOWL without Elway. He won A LOT with Jake Plummer and put Plummer in a position to succeed despite VAST failure in Arizona. Great coaching job in my opinion, probably his best coaching job of his career. Plummer couldn't carry us past the finish line which is why we went after Jay Cutler, a guy that could run AND pass. Blast that move however you want but Cutler was producing. It's unfortunate he didn't have a ton of help on either side of the ball. For the record, Shanahan also won and went to the playoffs with Griese and Beaurlein. Bubby Brister was HUGE in going undefeated when Elway was hurt in 1998, our 2nd super bowl season.

4. Wrong. People are not afraid of change. THey may be disappointed by it, not afraid. Most fans don't like 32 yr old 1st time HC's rolling through a stop and making risky decisions before a down of football has been played. We also scored a lot of TD's during the late 90's and early 2000's. Nobody was complaining about 280 lb linemen when we were breaking off 2000 yd combined rushing seasons per year. Hard to say we aren't changing schemes. We changed 4-3 schemes under Shanny. Year two has started with McD and he's already changed out Nolan, for what? Another scheme within the 3-4?

5. TBD.

6. Meh. I agree with his thoughts on approaching football, don't agree with his poor relationship skills which continue to pop up over his year in Denver. I think that's completely fair to say.

Shoemaker
04-21-2010, 02:01 PM
6. Meh. I agree with his thoughts on approaching football, don't agree with his poor relationship skills which continue to pop up over his year in Denver. I think that's completely fair to say.

Okay, this one I don't get. What "poor relationship skills" are we talking about?

I understand that he's had conflict with some players, namely Cutler, Marshall, and Scheffler. But I don't think that establishes a trend of poor communication.

Clearly, the Cutler situation was a bit of a debacle. But reports have indicated that Cutler was dissatisfied as soon as Shanahan was fired; before the whole "trading" incident even occurred. And McDaniels was fully prepared to move into the season with Cutler as his starter until Bowlen forced the trade, so its not like McDaniels kept trying to move Cutler after he failed to get Cassel because he just couldn't work with Jay or hated him so much.

Scheffler, well, he expressed his displeasure as soon as Cutler was traded. I doubt he and McDaniels ever got along well, but given the spinelessness that Scheffler showed near the end of last season, I'm not to worried about McDaniels not being a big fan of his.

And in every interview since the trade, Marshall has been nothing but complimentary of McDaniels and their relationship. Obviously, the Broncos FO, Josh included, felt that they couldn't make a long term investment in Brandon and decided to trade him, but it seemed like Marshall just wanted to get away from Denver, not from Josh in particular. I just don't see any indication that the trade was due to Marshall's "inability to get along with McDaniels."

Plus, aside from those three players, our locker room raves about the guy. Free agents want to come here; do you really think Dawkins would have left Philly to come here if he had had a poor relationship with McDaniels? People who interview Josh (Mike Lombardi, Peter King, etc.) come away very impressed with him. And now potential draft picks, like Weatherspoon and Benn, are raving about McDaniels and the team.

I understand that prominent players on this team have been traded during McDaniels' tenure, but I still don't understand where the perception that Josh has "poor relationship skills" comes from.

bloodsunday
04-21-2010, 02:11 PM
1. Partially Agree - Shanahan could have definitely tightened up the ship on spending. Draft picks are what they are though... you can revamp the FO and get better scouting, which allow for better drafting. It could be argued this is what was taking place during Mike's last three years IMO. Unfortunately, his veteran squad in 2005 turned over really quick through age, death, and injury. You can't say he didn't invest in the OL, because we took George Foster in what, 2004 with our 1st round pick and Ryan Clady just a few years ago. You can criticize the scouting but he was moving more towards what you are stating within the OL. Clady/Harris/Kuper were paying off huge dividends as recent as Mike's last year here. While not having a face on the running game, it was still producing.

2. Agree.

3. Disagree. You are right in the sense that he could never win a SUPER BOWL without Elway. He won A LOT with Jake Plummer and put Plummer in a position to succeed despite VAST failure in Arizona. Great coaching job in my opinion, probably his best coaching job of his career. Plummer couldn't carry us past the finish line which is why we went after Jay Cutler, a guy that could run AND pass. Blast that move however you want but Cutler was producing. It's unfortunate he didn't have a ton of help on either side of the ball. For the record, Shanahan also won and went to the playoffs with Griese and Beaurlein. Bubby Brister was HUGE in going undefeated when Elway was hurt in 1998, our 2nd super bowl season.

4. Wrong. People are not afraid of change. THey may be disappointed by it, not afraid. Most fans don't like 32 yr old 1st time HC's rolling through a stop and making risky decisions before a down of football has been played. We also scored a lot of TD's during the late 90's and early 2000's. Nobody was complaining about 280 lb linemen when we were breaking off 2000 yd combined rushing seasons per year. Hard to say we aren't changing schemes. We changed 4-3 schemes under Shanny. Year two has started with McD and he's already changed out Nolan, for what? Another scheme within the 3-4?

5. TBD.

6. Meh. I agree with his thoughts on approaching football, don't agree with his poor relationship skills which continue to pop up over his year in Denver. I think that's completely fair to say.

1. He didn't draft Clady until he was almost out of Denver. Foster was an "oops" pick (and it showed by the way). He thought he had a deal to draft down. In general he didn't draft well enough build a core of a team. He had hits and misses every year, but the teams that have succeeded the past 10 years have killed the draft. Denver was not among them. You cannot blame scouts or personnel because Shanahan oversaw all of that.

3. You can define success however you want. For me, 1 division title in 10 years is not enough. Yes there were several playoff opportunities in there, but in reality its tough to win a Super Bowl if you cannot win your division. He also only 1 one playoff game after Elway. Bottom line, his W/L record, his playoff record, and his division dominance all went downhill when Elway hung em' up. I'll get to the Jake Plummer thing later....

4. Again, define it how you want. People are already on McDaniels because of everything he is not. People had a defined perspective of how this transition should go and it include everything Shanahan, minus Shanahan. Keep the roster together, more specifically keep the offense together. Keep Turner, etc... But in reality, making organizational change after a guy that had so much power leaves after such a long time should be hard, by definition. To me, that is fear of change. "It's ok to change as long as the change is within my grasp of acceptable." And for the record, I am not complaining about the size of the lineman more than the flawed idea that you can build a "system" out of average players on the line of scrimmage.

6. I find if fascinating that all of a sudden McDaniels has "poor relationship skills" as if Shanahan was Ghandi. Am I the only one that remembers how he treated Jake Plummer at the end? Am I the only one that remembers his deteriorating relationship with Sundquist and about 5 different defensive coordinators (we lost Ray Rhodes and Bates in one season each!)? How about the way he got along with Gibb's son? Did you blank out on the fact that Shanahan was game planning behind Dan Reeves back when he was an assistant coach here? Brandon Marshall himself said that the reports of his relationship with McDaniels were blown out of proportion. Of course high profile guys like this are going to be perceived as being difficult to get along with. It's their job to make tough decisions. In the NFL those decisions cost people millions of dollars. It's part of the deal.

I for one saw McDaniels mature in the way he dealt with the media and with running an organization as the season moved along last year. Yes he's young and yes he's learning on the job (to a certain degree). But that's how it goes. Again, I am not even saying I am certain McDaniels will be a blinding success. I don't know. But I think he's worth giving a chance.

Steve Sewell
04-21-2010, 02:19 PM
This is an excellent post, I agree with everything you said.

Tombstone RJ
04-21-2010, 02:25 PM
1. He didn't draft Clady until he was almost out of Denver. Foster was an "oops" pick (and it showed by the way). He thought he had a deal to draft down. In general he didn't draft well enough build a core of a team. He had hits and misses every year, but the teams that have succeeded the past 10 years have killed the draft. Denver was not among them. You cannot blame scouts or personnel because Shanahan oversaw all of that.

3. You can define success however you want. For me, 1 division title in 10 years is not enough. Yes there were several playoff opportunities in there, but in reality its tough to win a Super Bowl if you cannot win your division. He also only 1 one playoff game after Elway. Bottom line, his W/L record, his playoff record, and his division dominance all went downhill when Elway hung em' up. I'll get to the Jake Plummer thing later....

4. Again, define it how you want. People are already on McDaniels because of everything he is not. People had a defined perspective of how this transition should go and it include everything Shanahan, minus Shanahan. Keep the roster together, more specifically keep the offense together. Keep Turner, etc... But in reality, making organizational change after a guy that had so much power leaves after such a long time should be hard, by definition. To me, that is fear of change. "It's ok to change as long as the change is within my grasp of acceptable." And for the record, I am not complaining about the size of the lineman more than the flawed idea that you can build a "system" out of average players on the line of scrimmage.

6. I find if fascinating that all of a sudden McDaniels has "poor relationship skills" as if Shanahan was Ghandi. Am I the only one that remembers how he treated Jake Plummer at the end? Am I the only one that remembers his deteriorating relationship with Sundquist and about 5 different defensive coordinators (we lost Ray Rhodes and Bates in one season each!)? How about the way he got along with Gibb's son? Did you blank out on the fact that Shanahan was game planning behind Dan Reeves back when he was an assistant coach here? Brandon Marshall himself said that the reports of his relationship with McDaniels were blown out of proportion. Of course high profile guys like this are going to be perceived as being difficult to get along with. It's their job to make tough decisions. In the NFL those decisions cost people millions of dollars. It's part of the deal.

I for one saw McDaniels mature in the way he dealt with the media and with running an organization as the season moved along last year. Yes he's young and yes he's learning on the job (to a certain degree). But that's how it goes. Again, I am not even saying I am certain McDaniels will be a blinding success. I don't know. But I think he's worth giving a chance.

This is what I've been saying since McD was hired. A lot of posters are just flat out scared of all the change because it's not what they expected.

It's perfectly understandable why so many supposed long time Broncos fans are so critical of McD. They are scared, plain and simple.

Steve Sewell
04-21-2010, 02:26 PM
I understand that prominent players on this team have been traded during McDaniels' tenure, but I still don't understand where the perception that Josh has "poor relationship skills" comes from.

I believe it's because people are uncomfortable with the notion of a really young guy being in a position of immense power who has the ability to assert his authority.

Dagmar
04-21-2010, 02:30 PM
Okay, this one I don't get. What "poor relationship skills" are we talking about?

I understand that he's had conflict with some players, namely Cutler, Marshall, and Scheffler. But I don't think that establishes a trend of poor communication.

Clearly, the Cutler situation was a bit of a debacle. But reports have indicated that Cutler was dissatisfied as soon as Shanahan was fired; before the whole "trading" incident even occurred. And McDaniels was fully prepared to move into the season with Cutler as his starter until Bowlen forced the trade, so its not like McDaniels kept trying to move Cutler after he failed to get Cassel because he just couldn't work with Jay or hated him so much.

Scheffler, well, he expressed his displeasure as soon as Cutler was traded. I doubt he and McDaniels ever got along well, but given the spinelessness that Scheffler showed near the end of last season, I'm not to worried about McDaniels not being a big fan of his.

And in every interview since the trade, Marshall has been nothing but complimentary of McDaniels and their relationship. Obviously, the Broncos FO, Josh included, felt that they couldn't make a long term investment in Brandon and decided to trade him, but it seemed like Marshall just wanted to get away from Denver, not from Josh in particular. I just don't see any indication that the trade was due to Marshall's "inability to get along with McDaniels."

Plus, aside from those three players, our locker room raves about the guy. Free agents want to come here; do you really think Dawkins would have left Philly to come here if he had had a poor relationship with McDaniels? People who interview Josh (Mike Lombardi, Peter King, etc.) come away very impressed with him. And now potential draft picks, like Weatherspoon and Benn, are raving about McDaniels and the team.

I understand that prominent players on this team have been traded during McDaniels' tenure, but I still don't understand where the perception that Josh has "poor relationship skills" comes from.

Look, this road has been traveled many a time, to save you and bpc some time, you will NEVER change bpc's mind.

Bronco Yoda
04-21-2010, 02:42 PM
Okay, this one I don't get. What "poor relationship skills" are we talking about?

I understand that he's had conflict with some players, namely Cutler, Marshall, and Scheffler. But I don't think that establishes a trend of poor communication.

Clearly, the Cutler situation was a bit of a debacle. But reports have indicated that Cutler was dissatisfied as soon as Shanahan was fired; before the whole "trading" incident even occurred. And McDaniels was fully prepared to move into the season with Cutler as his starter until Bowlen forced the trade, so its not like McDaniels kept trying to move Cutler after he failed to get Cassel because he just couldn't work with Jay or hated him so much.

Scheffler, well, he expressed his displeasure as soon as Cutler was traded. I doubt he and McDaniels ever got along well, but given the spinelessness that Scheffler showed near the end of last season, I'm not to worried about McDaniels not being a big fan of his.

And in every interview since the trade, Marshall has been nothing but complimentary of McDaniels and their relationship. Obviously, the Broncos FO, Josh included, felt that they couldn't make a long term investment in Brandon and decided to trade him, but it seemed like Marshall just wanted to get away from Denver, not from Josh in particular. I just don't see any indication that the trade was due to Marshall's "inability to get along with McDaniels."

Plus, aside from those three players, our locker room raves about the guy. Free agents want to come here; do you really think Dawkins would have left Philly to come here if he had had a poor relationship with McDaniels? People who interview Josh (Mike Lombardi, Peter King, etc.) come away very impressed with him. And now potential draft picks, like Weatherspoon and Benn, are raving about McDaniels and the team.

I understand that prominent players on this team have been traded during McDaniels' tenure, but I still don't understand where the perception that Josh has "poor relationship skills" comes from.

You forgot Hillis in your post. For this egregious omission... you are hence forth sent back to lurking.

Cito Pelon
04-21-2010, 02:54 PM
This is what I've been saying since McD was hired. A lot of posters are just flat out scared of all the change because it's not what they expected.

It's perfectly understandable why so many supposed long time Broncos fans are so critical of McD. They are scared, plain and simple.

True.

DawnBTVS
04-21-2010, 02:56 PM
One thing I think gets overlooked in regards to McDaniels and his "communication issues"/"people skills"...

Yes, he traded Jay Cutler (who reportedly was upset when both the QB Coach AND Shanahan were let go pre-new coach), Brandon Marshall (who's said he's wanted out of Denver for a while and finally got his wish and as others have said he's been high on McDaniels as a person), and Scheffler (who's reportedly been upset since Cutler was traded since they were close).

But you all forget about the other 49-50 players on the roster. Champ Bailey, a respected veteran, hasn't complained about McDaniels. Brian Dawkins, signed as a free agent, hasn't complained. Ryan Clady hasn't been complaining despite being part of an offensive line asked to play a completely different scheme he learned under Shanahan. Jarvis Green signed in part because of McDaniels and McD didn't exactly scare Jamal Williams away from signing.

I think some of the posters are extracting Josh's trading of the first three players (and the loss of Mike Nolan despite replacing him IN HOUSE with a guy the players admittedly liked and WANTED) with a team wide expectation that the guy as head coach has people problems and struggles to communicate with players (or wants to communicate with them). They ignore the free agents who've signed AFTER Josh was named head coach and ignored the lack of complaints from highly respected veterans.

RonDaChamp24
04-21-2010, 03:06 PM
Your post is way to rational and will not be appreciated. That being said, I completely agree with every single point you made.

This ^

Popps
04-21-2010, 03:31 PM
This is what I've been saying since McD was hired. A lot of posters are just flat out scared of all the change because it's not what they expected.

It's perfectly understandable why so many supposed long time Broncos fans are so critical of McD. They are scared, plain and simple.

http://gameinformer.com/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Discussions.Components.Files/31/4503.end_2D00_of_2D00_thread_5F00_do_2D00_not_2D00 _post_2D00_more.jpg

TheReverend
04-21-2010, 03:35 PM
True.

Not at all true.

Plain and simple fact is the future is completely uncertain.

You may agree or disagree with what he's done, but McD is easily the most polarizing Broncos figure in the past decade AT LEAST.

The other plain and simple fact is that this argument can only be ended by one man's actions whether they result in success or failure: Josh McDaniels.

elsid13
04-21-2010, 04:09 PM
1. He didn't draft Clady until he was almost out of Denver. Foster was an "oops" pick (and it showed by the way). He thought he had a deal to draft down. In general he didn't draft well enough build a core of a team. He had hits and misses every year, but the teams that have succeeded the past 10 years have killed the draft. Denver was not among them. You cannot blame scouts or personnel because Shanahan oversaw all of that.

No one knew that Shanahan was going anywhere when he decided to take Clady and he had had very good LT in Lepsis which meant he didn't need to invest in that position. And as much this board likes to kill Shanahan's drafts they are on par or slightly better then most of the teams in NFL.

rastaman
04-21-2010, 04:14 PM
http://gameinformer.com/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Discussions.Components.Files/31/4503.end_2D00_of_2D00_thread_5F00_do_2D00_not_2D00 _post_2D00_more.jpg

WHY DON'T YOU TAKE YOUR OWN ADVICE! :sunshine:

OCBronco
04-21-2010, 04:36 PM
The conventional wisdom had it that all McDaniels, or any coach, had to do was just leave the offense alone, come in and fix the D. Then you'd be set for a championship run.

Further, most assumed that Bowlen thought this way, and McDaniels more or less hoodwinked Bowlen so that he could get the job.

Here I'm more or less repeating what I've heard by some of the talking heads on NFL Network, as well as Profootballtalk.com, and so on.

The problem with this is that if you thought that the team was just a good D away from a championship, then why fire Shanahan? I suspect that Bowlen thought that things need to be radically reorganized, and that he probably wasn't against the idea of blowing up the team and remodeling it. Think about that for a second. You haven't seen Bowlen on TV, railing about how McDaniels shouldn't have gotten rid of Cutler or Marshall. In fact, it's the opposite, and he seems fine with the fact that things are proceeding as they are.

I guess this is just a long way of saying that it's not all McDaniels here. The organization as a whole is behind the new coach, and seems perfectly fine with completely remodeling the team.

Steve Sewell
04-21-2010, 04:41 PM
The conventional wisdom had it that all McDaniels, or any coach, had to do was just leave the offense alone, come in and fix the D. Then you'd be set for a championship run.

Further, most assumed that Bowlen thought this way, and McDaniels more or less hoodwinked Bowlen so that he could get the job.

Here I'm more or less repeating what I've heard by some of the talking heads on NFL Network, as well as Profootballtalk.com, and so on.

The problem with this is that if you thought that the team was just a good D away from a championship, then why fire Shanahan? I suspect that Bowlen thought that things need to be radically reorganized, and that he probably wasn't against the idea of blowing up the team and remodeling it. Think about that for a second. You haven't seen Bowlen on TV, railing about how McDaniels shouldn't have gotten rid of Cutler or Marshall. In fact, it's the opposite, and he seems fine with the fact that things are proceeding as they are.

I guess this is just a long way of saying that it's not all McDaniels here. The organization as a whole is behind the new coach, and seems perfectly fine with completely remodeling the team.

Which is precisely why Bowlen is one of the most well respected owners in all of professional sports. He hires the right people and gets the hell out of the way so that they can do their job.

tsiguy96
04-21-2010, 04:43 PM
No one knew that Shanahan was going anywhere when he decided to take Clady and he had had very good LT in Lepsis which meant he didn't need to invest in that position. And as much this board likes to kill Shanahan's drafts they are on par or slightly better then most of the teams in NFL.

do you not remember 2000-2005? he was the worst drafter in the NFL during that time, remember all those stats about us havinglike 1 guy on the team in 07 from those drafts.

TheReverend
04-21-2010, 04:47 PM
Which is precisely why Bowlen is one of the most well respected owners in all of professional sports. He hires the right people and gets the hell out of the way so that they can do their job.

Well.. he's 50/50 so far (miss with Wade, hit with Mike). This year should show us a LOT about which category Josh falls in. Let's hope it was a bold, and correct choice.

Steve Sewell
04-21-2010, 04:50 PM
Well.. he's 50/50 so far (miss with Wade, hit with Mike). This year should show us a LOT about which category Josh falls in. Let's hope it was a bold, and correct choice.

Everyone knew that Wade was a placeholder for Shanahan. Bowlen wanted Shanahan and he turned him down as he wanted to prove himself as an OC first and win a SB with SF. Once that was accomplished Shanahan became available and the rest was history.

TheReverend
04-21-2010, 05:00 PM
Everyone knew that Wade was a placeholder for Shanahan. Bowlen wanted Shanahan and he turned him down as he wanted to prove himself as an OC first and win a SB with SF. Once that was accomplished Shanahan became available and the rest was history.

Kinda illustrates my point that he's only done it once...

Time will tell. No need to make it out to be something it may or may not be prematurely.

Cito Pelon
04-21-2010, 05:01 PM
Not at all true.

Plain and simple fact is the future is completely uncertain.

You may agree or disagree with what he's done, but McD is easily the most polarizing Broncos figure in the past decade AT LEAST.

The other plain and simple fact is that this argument can only be ended by one man's actions whether they result in success or failure: Josh McDaniels.

C'mon, dude. Fact is many posters here were just plain scared when Shanny got fired, they went hysterical, just plain Chicken Little the sky is falling hysterical. They lost their god, figured nobody could replace Himself.

Year after year I'd hear unconditional support for Shanahan, "it's all part of the Plan, in Shanny I trust, he's reloading not rebuilding", all that rubbish. But McD comes in and suddenly its "he doesn't have a plan, I don't trust him, he's tearing the team apart".

Many people were scared, they lost the familiar, lost their anchor. But instead of relaxing and seeing how it pans out, they went hysterical and proclaimed it's gonna be a disaster. What a bunch of sissies. Thank god the team wasn't composed of a bunch of sissies like that.

TheReverend
04-21-2010, 05:07 PM
C'mon, dude. Fact is many posters here were just plain scared when Shanny got fired, they went hysterical, just plain Chicken Little the sky is falling hysterical. They lost their god, figured nobody could replace Himself.

Year after year I'd hear unconditional support for Shanahan, "it's all part of the Plan, in Shanny I trust, he's reloading not rebuilding", all that rubbish. But McD comes in and suddenly its "he doesn't have a plan, I don't trust him, he's tearing the team apart".

Many people were scared, they lost the familiar, lost their anchor. But instead of relaxing and seeing how it pans out, they went hysterical and proclaimed it's gonna be a disaster. What a bunch of sissies. Thank god the team wasn't composed of a bunch of sissies like that.

Firing a HoF coach will do that.

Having a new guy that's never been a HC before come in and start making drastic changes is absolutely going to have a polarizing effect on the fan base.

Josh will prove himself right in making those changes, or he'll prove himself wrong. I've got a lot of likes that he's done and probably even more dislikes. To illustrate how silly the "people are scared" factor... the media has no personal attachment to the team or Shanahan, and they also generally lambasted McDaniels for the moves he made.

They were bold moves that WILL come with different reactions from different perspectives. To cut that down to "people with a different opinion than mine are just scared" is not only myopic, it's ****ing stupid.

In the end, Josh will be right, or he'll be wrong. None of this discussion matters.

Cito Pelon
04-21-2010, 05:08 PM
Well.. he's 50/50 so far (miss with Wade, hit with Mike). This year should show us a LOT about which category Josh falls in. Let's hope it was a bold, and correct choice.

Just relax, there's no need to imply over and over the team is gonna fail.

scttgrd
04-21-2010, 05:11 PM
Many people were not upset about Shanny getting fired. What scared the **** out of me was running talent out of town over personal issues.

TheReverend
04-21-2010, 05:12 PM
Just relax, there's no need to imply over and over the team is gonna fail.

Post one example of that this off-season?

tsiguy96
04-21-2010, 05:14 PM
Post one example of that this off-season?

it was more before the 2009 season. people predicting 1 win, mcdaniels was going to destroy the team etc etc. then as we saw, cutler blew up and we had a good start...

Hamrob
04-21-2010, 05:18 PM
I love the orange and blue goggles!

Mike Shanahan is a Superbowl champion HOF coach. Say what you want about him, but we were never not competetive with him calling the shots.

Josh McDaniels has done absolutely nothing....other than cause a bunch of drama out of the gates. I like his moxy and I can see his potential...but, he hasn't accomplished Jack-bone! Can we give it some time to see whether we can even win with him...before we start comparing him to anyone? Please.

Cito Pelon
04-21-2010, 05:28 PM
Post one example of that this off-season?

I realize you're sitting on the fence, I'm gonna get on you for not getting with the program. You have a method of taking backhanded swipes that is irritating to me. It's not a big deal, just debating a little bit.

TheReverend
04-21-2010, 05:33 PM
it was more before the 2009 season. people predicting 1 win, mcdaniels was going to destroy the team etc etc. then as we saw, cutler blew up and we had a good start...

Yup, and lots of people ate crow after 6-0. Sadly, the team imploded from that part and put a lot of people back on the fence. That's not belittling the 6-0 achievement, but the 2-8 finish is precisely what a lot of people expected, so it does bring some alarm.

I realize you're sitting on the fence, I'm gonna get on you for not getting with the program. You have a method of taking backhanded swipes that is irritating to me. It's not a big deal, just debating a little bit.

Credit when he does something I agree with. Criticism when he doesn't. Did the same with Mike despite having more of a foundation to trust that coach... I'm sure you remember that Niko thread I made that you flipped your **** over. It's nothing McDaniels specific and I hope he's right on everything I think he's wrong about

Cito Pelon
04-21-2010, 05:38 PM
Firing a HoF coach will do that.

Having a new guy that's never been a HC before come in and start making drastic changes is absolutely going to have a polarizing effect on the fan base.

Josh will prove himself right in making those changes, or he'll prove himself wrong. I've got a lot of likes that he's done and probably even more dislikes. To illustrate how silly the "people are scared" factor... the media has no personal attachment to the team or Shanahan, and they also generally lambasted McDaniels for the moves he made.

They were bold moves that WILL come with different reactions from different perspectives. To cut that down to "people with a different opinion than mine are just scared" is not only myopic, it's ****ing stupid.

In the end, Josh will be right, or he'll be wrong. None of this discussion matters.

I think the "people are scared" factor is very valid. You can present it as likes and dislikes, I see it clearly as fear. Fear of the unknown. Fear of change. It was a change, but the change was attacking mediocrity.

Cito Pelon
04-21-2010, 05:55 PM
Yup, and lots of people ate crow after 6-0. Sadly, the team imploded from that part and put a lot of people back on the fence. That's not belittling the 6-0 achievement, but the 2-8 finish is precisely what a lot of people expected, so it does bring some alarm.



Credit when he does something I agree with. Criticism when he doesn't. Did the same with Mike despite having more of a foundation to trust that coach... I'm sure you remember that Niko thread I made that you flipped your **** over. It's nothing McDaniels specific and I hope he's right on everything I think he's wrong about

That's fine with me, you've been somewhat fairhanded, but more skeptical than I think you should be, hence you posting "Post one example of that this off-season". You've gone ballistic anti-mcD more than once.

And, feel free to post whatever I said in that Niko thread, it may be painful for me to reread, but go ahead. I've said a lot of stupid things on this board, as have we all, plus I banged my Lexus into a curb last night, that's gonna be in the shop for a while. So bring it on, let's get it out of the way now.

tsiguy96
04-21-2010, 06:02 PM
I love the orange and blue goggles!

Mike Shanahan is a Superbowl champion HOF coach. Say what you want about him, but we were never not competetive with him calling the shots.

Josh McDaniels has done absolutely nothing....other than cause a bunch of drama out of the gates. I like his moxy and I can see his potential...but, he hasn't accomplished Jack-bone! Can we give it some time to see whether we can even win with him...before we start comparing him to anyone? Please.

a lot of people have been saying that from day one, but the chicken little crowd would have no part of it.

scttgrd
04-21-2010, 06:07 PM
a lot of people have been saying that from day one, but the chicken little crowd would have no part of it.

But the show us something is still waiting. A 2-8 collapse is not helping the cause, and putting the player issues in the media before a playoff deciding game scares the hell out of some of us. Winning is the goal, not showing the coach has a brass crotch. On the job training might work in Jacksonville, but not Denver.

TheReverend
04-21-2010, 06:18 PM
That's fine with me, you've been somewhat fairhanded, but more skeptical than I think you should be, hence you posting "Post one example of that this off-season". You've gone ballistic anti-mcD more than once.

And, feel free to post whatever I said in that Niko thread, it may be painful for me to reread, but go ahead. I've said a lot of stupid things on this board, as have we all, plus I banged my Lexus into a curb last night, that's gonna be in the shop for a while. So bring it on, let's get it out of the way now.

The point behind referencing that thread was it was an example of me being critical over a decision I disagreed with that I know you're aware of. There's no need to go over it for any other reason.

As for your first paragraph, sure, and I think he deserved every bit of those criticisms. I still dislike the Cutler trade, I still dislike firing the Goodmans (though I lay that more on Pat's hands for doing it after publicly acknowledging their proficiency and stating they're remain in that capacity), I still dislike the Smith and Quinn trades, I still dislike the majority of the offensive coaching staff, I still dislike Nolan leaving though I think Martindale was the perfect choice to replace, and I dislike what's happened with Hamilton, Marshall and Scheffler.

Reasons why I still dislike those moves:

-We couldn't open up opposing defenses with a deep ball like we have in the past, and we didn't have a QB defenses had to gameplan around.
-Last years draft was lackluster in my opinion. Obviously the book isn't closed on these guys. I understood the Moreno pick considering we had to reshape the scope of the offense with Orton. Ayers was an outstanding prospect in a 4-3 to me. The Smith pick I despised. The McBath one I loved and Quinn was shockingly disturbing.
-The majority of the offensive coaching staff outside of McDaniels have lackluster resumes and may have been a reason for the offensive decline (along with personnel naturally).
-What Nolan did with last years defense was damn near god-like. Credit to McDaniels as obviously he played some level of role in this as well, but the results spoke for themselves and though I like the replacement, give Nolan a beejer if that's what it takes to make him stay.
-You certainly won't hear me say that Marshall and Scheff didn't punch their own tickets out of town. That being said, where there's smoke there's fire and the list of talented players and coaches leaving town raises eyebrows. Now if it's all strictly coincidental... well, that's a remarkable coincidence.
-Re Hamilton. It's clear our biggest weakness is the interior OL, and we added no vets. That means we're relying on the growth of young guys and potential rookies after this week. I see absolutely no sense in this move. Too small for guard? No problem, shift him to center so we have an experienced player calling defensive fronts and protections at the LOS. Beaten out by younger guys? No problem, he had a relatively small cap number in an uncapped year and was widely known as a tactician that would've been a fantastic asset in helping to develop these younger guys.

So... say what you will about my stance, I have concise reasons for what I feel the franchise dropped the ball on, and whether you disagree with them or not, none of the preceding are unreasonable by any means.

Cito Pelon
04-21-2010, 06:59 PM
The point behind referencing that thread was it was an example of me being critical over a decision I disagreed with that I know you're aware of. There's no need to go over it for any other reason.

As for your first paragraph, sure, and I think he deserved every bit of those criticisms. I still dislike the Cutler trade, I still dislike firing the Goodmans (though I lay that more on Pat's hands for doing it after publicly acknowledging their proficiency and stating they're remain in that capacity), I still dislike the Smith and Quinn trades, I still dislike the majority of the offensive coaching staff, I still dislike Nolan leaving though I think Martindale was the perfect choice to replace, and I dislike what's happened with Hamilton, Marshall and Scheffler.

Reasons why I still dislike those moves:

-We couldn't open up opposing defenses with a deep ball like we have in the past, and we didn't have a QB defenses had to gameplan around.
-Last years draft was lackluster in my opinion. Obviously the book isn't closed on these guys. I understood the Moreno pick considering we had to reshape the scope of the offense with Orton. Ayers was an outstanding prospect in a 4-3 to me. The Smith pick I despised. The McBath one I loved and Quinn was shockingly disturbing.
-The majority of the offensive coaching staff outside of McDaniels have lackluster resumes and may have been a reason for the offensive decline (along with personnel naturally).
-What Nolan did with last years defense was damn near god-like. Credit to McDaniels as obviously he played some level of role in this as well, but the results spoke for themselves and though I like the replacement, give Nolan a beejer if that's what it takes to make him stay.
-You certainly won't hear me say that Marshall and Scheff didn't punch their own tickets out of town. That being said, where there's smoke there's fire and the list of talented players and coaches leaving town raises eyebrows. Now if it's all strictly coincidental... well, that's a remarkable coincidence.
-Re Hamilton. It's clear our biggest weakness is the interior OL, and we added no vets. That means we're relying on the growth of young guys and potential rookies after this week. I see absolutely no sense in this move. Too small for guard? No problem, shift him to center so we have an experienced player calling defensive fronts and protections at the LOS. Beaten out by younger guys? No problem, he had a relatively small cap number in an uncapped year and was widely known as a tactician that would've been a fantastic asset in helping to develop these younger guys.

So... say what you will about my stance, I have concise reasons for what I feel the franchise dropped the ball on, and whether you disagree with them or not, none of the preceding are unreasonable by any means.

I really can't blame you for venting, I've done the same many a time. There's been some disturbing incidences, but I won't go off on a new staff as quick as you. I'll give them the chance to build the team.

There's also been good reasons for jettisoning some players, you can't hang onto guys that don't want to play for the team, or can be replaced easily.

TonyR
04-21-2010, 07:22 PM
Say what you want about him, but we were never not competetive with him calling the shots.

Josh McDaniels has done absolutely nothing...

For the record, Josh McD's first Broncos team was just as competitive as Mike Shanahan's 14th. Same record against a considerably more difficult schedule, and this after completely rebuilding the defense and changing the starting QB.

TotallyScrewed
04-21-2010, 07:35 PM
After reflecting on our season and the upheaval in our organization, I've come to a couple of conclusions:

1) It was without a doubt time to move on from Mike Shanahan (put aside who we hired for the moment). His wasteful spending and constant draft failings were compounding and killing us. (See dead money last year). Shanahan made his reputation in Denver by being ahead of the curve in FA (it started in 93 and he became our HC in 95) by finding quality "role" players like McCaffrey, Romanowski, etc.... But now the rest of the league sees that strategy as status quo in FA and the draft has once again become the best way to build your team. What's more, Shanahan refused to build this team at the most important point of football -- the line of scrimmage. Drafting late round, under-sized offensive lineman to run a zone-blocking scheme became a stale idea and he didn't adapt. I think he failed to recognize that the players he had when he first implemented the zone-blocking scheme were much better than "system" players.

2) I think Mike will be a better coach for this transition and having a chance to step back.

3) Shanahan never proved he could win without Elway.

4) Why are people so afraid of change? This organization has one exactly 1 playoff game and 1 division in more than a decade? Yes change comes with risk, but is a mediocre status quo really any better? McDaniels may not be the answer, but we won't have to continue watching 280 offensive lineman get flogged in the redzone, RB that look like Gale Sayers between the 20's and disappear and cannot finish, or a rotating door on defensive schemes.

5) Why do people see that the answer is 4 and assume the question was "what's 2 + 2?". When McDaniels was asked if he was surprised that Denver didn't hire a "defensive-minded head coach", he responded by saying that he was hired to coach the entire football team. To me, that was one of the most impressive things that McDaniels said when he was introduced as head coach. Everyone around here belly-ached about the defense and assumed we would hire "Spagnolo" and just leave the offense alone. What's more, everyone assumed that hiring McDaniels was about the offense because of the 2007 Patriots. But, people forget two things: 1) McDaniels started in NE as a defensive coach and 2) NE is not a perennial super power on offense (2007 aside). In fact, I would say that it's my opinion they buttered their bread on defense and had timely/clutch offense. So isn't it possible that maybe we got a head coach because he knows defense? I also think that over time we'll find he will put much more emphasis on special teams than Shanahan ever did, particularly late in his tenure.

6) This is really a summary of all these things, but in general I like the "plan" that this organization has, at least as I perceive it. It's difficult to know if McDaniels will succeed or fail, but in general I agree with his approach: 1) build the team at the line of scrimmage 2) build the core of the team through the draft 3) improve the run defense (and really the defense overall) 4) build a team first approach.

MEH...where's the part about moving on?

TotallyScrewed
04-21-2010, 08:06 PM
This is what I've been saying since McD was hired. A lot of posters are just flat out scared of all the change because it's not what they expected.

It's perfectly understandable why so many supposed long time Broncos fans are so critical of McD. They are scared, plain and simple.

2-8 is ****. If you like **** bon appetite! Until McD can prove he's better at: Coaching a game, drafting players, coming from behind for a win, winning the West, winning a playoff game, make it a season without whining to the media about player X, being a punk and arguing with opposing players...I'm going to wait and see but the clock is ticking.

McD vs. Shanny is no comparison. McD hasn't done jack...period.

I've got nothing invested but my time and I've got plenty of other things to do. Scared...pfffttt.

TheReverend
04-21-2010, 08:07 PM
I really can't blame you for venting, I've done the same many a time. There's been some disturbing incidences, but I won't go off on a new staff as quick as you. I'll give them the chance to build the team.

There's also been good reasons for jettisoning some players, you can't hang onto guys that don't want to play for the team, or can be replaced easily.

That's the misconception. NO ONE is not giving them the chance to build the team. Everyone here is here because they're bronco fans, despite the superfans saying otherwise. If people weren't giving the staff the chance and that were that intolerant of McD/Bowlen/Ellis and co, they'd be at a skins board. And no one has any input on the matter anyways.

And as I stated, "You certainly won't hear me say that Marshall and Scheff didn't punch their own tickets out of town"

Dedhed
04-21-2010, 08:17 PM
Not at all true.

Plain and simple fact is the future is completely uncertain.

You may agree or disagree with what he's done, but McD is easily the most polarizing Broncos figure in the past decade AT LEAST.

The other plain and simple fact is that this argument can only be ended by one man's actions whether they result in success or failure: Josh McDaniels.

I don't think it's coincidence that you call McD the most polarizing figure since the dawn of the Shanahan era.

Say you have 50% support for a HC. Thereby, any new head coach will fit your depiction.

Dedhed
04-21-2010, 08:18 PM
2-8 is ****.

What would you call 0-3 when you need to win only 1 game?

Cito Pelon
04-21-2010, 08:27 PM
That's the misconception. NO ONE is not giving them the chance to build the team. Everyone here is here because they're bronco fans, despite the superfans saying otherwise. If people weren't giving the staff the chance and that were that intolerant of McD/Bowlen/Ellis and co, they'd be at a skins board. And no one has any input on the matter anyways.

And as I stated, "You certainly won't hear me say that Marshall and Scheff didn't punch their own tickets out of town"

You read the board differently than I do. I see plenty of posters that denigrate McD every single chance they get. They may be here as Bronco fans, but much of the Bronco criticism I see is irrational, just kneejerk fear of the post-Shanahan era.

Tombstone RJ
04-21-2010, 08:35 PM
2-8 is ****. If you like **** bon appetite! Until McD can prove he's better at: Coaching a game, drafting players, coming from behind for a win, winning the West, winning a playoff game, make it a season without whining to the media about player X, being a punk and arguing with opposing players...I'm going to wait and see but the clock is ticking.

McD vs. Shanny is no comparison. McD hasn't done jack...period.

I've got nothing invested but my time and I've got plenty of other things to do. Scared...pfffttt.

It's not the way any of us Bronco fans wanted the season to end. However, the team still ended up 8-8 which is what Shanahan's team was the year before, with a much easier schedule, and with a much better opportunity to make the post season, yet went 0-3 down the stretch.

Cito Pelon
04-21-2010, 08:45 PM
But the show us something is still waiting. A 2-8 collapse is not helping the cause, and putting the player issues in the media before a playoff deciding game scares the hell out of some of us. Winning is the goal, not showing the coach has a brass crotch. On the job training might work in Jacksonville, but not Denver.

Just give it some time, it's only been one year. Let's see what the draft brings and see what the season looks like, eh?

rastaman
04-22-2010, 04:12 AM
It's not the way any of us Bronco fans wanted the season to end. However, the team still ended up 8-8 which is what Shanahan's team was the year before, with a much easier schedule, and with a much better opportunity to make the post season, yet went 0-3 down the stretch.

The McD led Broncos in 2009 also had two 4 game losing streaks of which the 2nd 4 game losses were to the Raiders and KC, with the KC lose having playoff implications on the line while getting beat by 20 points and surrendering 44 points.

Simply put the team quit on McD....and the veterans who advocated benching Marshall and Scheffler played like crap and they themselves should have been benched by the 4th quarter.

The end result of the 2009 season leaves a lot of fans with great concerns as well. So the 2010 season will be interesting to say the least. This year I'll be more concerned how effectively McD coaches the team and how the players respond and perform in November and most importantly December.

I can buy the fact that McD was implementing a new system as to the reasons of finishing 8-8. But I can also buy into the reasons for Shanny's 2008 Bronco's finishing 8-8 and 0-3 was due the fact that he lost 5 RB's to injury's and the last 3 weeks of the season, Shanny had to find RB's off the street.

So in my opinion McD finishing 8-8 after starting out 6-0, and over seeing a 2-8 meltdown is nothing to brag about.

In fact imagine if in 2010, McD goes the season with losing all 5 of his RB's to injury's as Shanny did in 2008......what would McD's record be at the end of the season? Most importantly, some fans would use the same RB injury scenario as for rationalizing another losing season.

Point is, you can't win in Nov and Dec if your running back corp is decimated by injuries. One can also say it was a miracle that Shanny even coached the Broncos to an 8-8 finish with the worst Defense in the league and having lost 5-7 RB's to season ending injuries.

WolfpackGuy
04-22-2010, 05:00 AM
I was shocked when Shanahan was fired, but then when the dust settled and I found out he was mulling keeping Slowik, he had to go.

I wanted a defensive minded coach who would improve the defense but leave the offense alone. Yeah, the former offensive players were inconsistent and boneheaded at times, but they were YOUNG, LEARNING, and happened to play during the 2 worst defensive seasons in Denver since 1993-94. Most of the offense at the end of 2008 had less than 2.5 years of game experience and was an AVERAGE defense away from being a consistent playoff team.

All these draft picks in return are nice, but is the team really getting anywhere? "The Coach" won't admit it, but it's obvious he's already looking for a new QB. We all know they need a WR now, and those ALWAYS pan out in the draft... I think the funniest part is the grumbling about getting a receiving TE when they already HAD one of those! I won't even get into trading a pick from a stronger 2010 draft into a weaker 2009 draft.

But what does it matter? It's not like you need talent or anything to be successful in the NFL.

Dr. Broncenstein
04-22-2010, 05:21 AM
What would you call 0-3 when you need to win only 1 game?

December 2009?

TheReverend
04-22-2010, 05:33 AM
You read the board differently than I do. I see plenty of posters that denigrate McD every single chance they get. They may be here as Bronco fans, but much of the Bronco criticism I see is irrational, just kneejerk fear of the post-Shanahan era.

I've seen some silly ones no doubt, but I still don't put it in the category of "abandoning the team", and they're probably all from 1-3 people. There's probably 10x as many people off the deep end on the obey like sheep whatever the official dove valley word is.

TheReverend
04-22-2010, 05:35 AM
It's not the way any of us Bronco fans wanted the season to end. However, the team still ended up 8-8 which is what Shanahan's team was the year before, with a much easier schedule, and with a much better opportunity to make the post season, yet went 0-3 down the stretch.

The brunt of that "harder schedule" illusion comes from the W/L improvements made by KC and SD... who improved their records (Oakland and us held steady) despite the phantom "harder schedule"...

bloodsunday
04-22-2010, 08:23 AM
Further, most assumed that Bowlen thought this way, and McDaniels more or less hoodwinked Bowlen so that he could get the job.
that's the most BS take I've ever heard. McDaniels wowed Bowlen. And make no mistake, Bowlen writes the checks. If he wanted Cutler, Marshall, or Nolan around, they'd still be around. Remember Cutler is the one that ignored Bowlen and wrote his own ticket out of here. We have no reason to believe that Bowlen is anything other than satisfied with McDaniels.

bloodsunday
04-22-2010, 08:26 AM
Many people were scared, they lost the familiar, lost their anchor. But instead of relaxing and seeing how it pans out, they went hysterical and proclaimed it's gonna be a disaster. What a bunch of sissies. Thank god the team wasn't composed of a bunch of sissies like that.

Rep. And if you look at the plan that McDaniels is attempting to execute, for the most part its what people around here have wanted for a long time. Again, focus on the draft, focus on defense, focus on character... etc...

The problem is the plan just doesn't include Cutler and Marshall.

I am not necessarily defending McDaniels here either. I don't know if he will succeed or fail. But, I do like the philosophy with which he is approaching this. So, I am willing to sit back and let it play out.