PDA

View Full Version : Players quick to defend McDaniels


Bronco Rob
10-27-2010, 05:16 AM
Players quick to defend McDaniels in wake of Broncos' blowout loss to Raiders


To begin his new week, Josh McDaniels opened his news conference by talking about the San Francisco 49ers. And nothing but.

All those close losses mean they're much better than their record, McDaniels said. By the time he finished building an impression of Vernon Davis, Frank Gore and Patrick Willis, there was every reason to believe those 49ers skipped across the Atlantic on their way to London.

All McDaniels talked about was the next game, this Sunday at famous Wembley Stadium, against the 49ers.

Hold on there, coach. The people in Denver are still seething about the previous game. They're still outraged at the 59-14 fiasco at Invesco Field that occurred Sunday against the Oakland Raiders.

Some people aren't quite ready to release their bitterness and despondency. The venom that has been released has almost fully been aimed at the Broncos' head coach.

"I'm not sugarcoating this. I'm going to be as honest as can be and tell it to you straight. It's not Josh," Broncos linebacker Mario Haggan said. "I've never been more prepared as a player from a head coach. And I've been through five or six already.

"We knew when the screen play was coming. We just didn't stop it. We knew when it was run-toss and they were going to try to hit the edge. We just didn't stop it. It's not him. People may not understand that, but I'm telling you that's the way it is."

It's become a cliche after every blowout defeat in any sport to accuse the beaten team of quitting and to question whether the coach has lost his players in the locker room.

The Broncos were not immune from these allegations and inquests even though the deficit was so large, so early — 38-0 midway through the second quarter — that there wasn't time to even think of mutiny.

"That's ridiculous," Broncos defensive tackle Justin Bannan said. "Josh hasn't lost this team. Nobody quit. When it's 21-0 and there's only five minutes gone on the clock? You're like, 'Oh, boy.' It's not even an uphill battle at that point. It's a fight for survival."

McDaniels has spent almost all of the past 48 hours studying the 49ers (1-6), putting together a game plan that gives his 2-5 team the best chance of posting a perfect international record of 1-0.

But because he's also a husband and father of three, he goes home at night. He's not completely insulated from the uproar that has thundered up and down the Front Range.

"You understand they want you to win, and when you don't win, they're going to take out their frustrations," McDaniels said in a quiet hallway at the team's Dove Valley headquarters. "And it's usually the coach. That's the occupation that I chose. It's part of the deal. You don't run from it. You take responsibility for it."

And now it's Wednesday and the team has a new game to play, on a different continent, on a new day, against a different opponent.

"The only thing I can control is do the best I can to move forward and play and coach better than what we did," McDaniels said.


Criticism nothing new

Those who see McDaniels' boyish looks and believe he will melt beneath the heat of criticism are forgetting his background.

As a fifth-grader, he needed a police escort to elementary school because his father, a highly successful high school coach in the prep football-crazed area of northern Ohio, received a death-threat letter that hinted at
kidnapping.

Josh and Ben McDaniels, now the Broncos' quarterbacks coach, grew up in a neighborhood where occasionally the neighbors stated their disenchantment with Dad by planting a sign in the front yard.

McDaniels later became the starting quarterback for his father's high school team at Canton McKinley, a distinction that never helps a kid win the school's popularity contest. In the famous 100th meeting between archrivals McKinley and Massillon, McDaniels quarterbacked his offense to 41 points. But he also missed an extra-point kick in overtime that helped Massillon prevail 42-41.

How many 17-year-olds lived with that? So go ahead. Shake those angry fists at McDaniels. Write in comments to The Denver Post's website demanding that Mc-Daniels be fired. He can take it because he's been through this before. And because the 49ers are dead ahead.

"I think that's sports," Mc-Daniels said. "You have this job for one reason and that's to try and win. We certainly didn't do nearly well enough the other day. We have to handle adversity together and focus on what we can control, which is going forward."

After missing that extra point, McDaniels came back two weeks later to help beat Massillon in the playoffs. Granted, it's a long way between playing a Federal League game in Canton, Ohio, and an NFL game in London.

But dealing with life's humiliating experiences has nothing to do with the size of the stage.

"We know we have a good coach," Broncos cornerback Champ Bailey said. "We know we have a good team. We just have to play like it."



http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_16442435



:sunshine:

Killericon
10-27-2010, 05:59 AM
I like hearing that from Haggan, but it doesn't mean a hell of a lot.

jhat01
10-27-2010, 06:01 AM
Show us you've got his back by beating the **** out of the 9ers.

Meck77
10-27-2010, 06:13 AM
So much for all the speculation on the Gary Miller thread.

crawdad
10-27-2010, 06:18 AM
I was thinking the same thing Steve!

fontaine
10-27-2010, 06:26 AM
I like hearing that from Haggan, but it doesn't mean a hell of a lot.

No especially when Haggan missed two tackles behind the line or scrimmage.

Rohirrim
10-27-2010, 06:51 AM
This is your primary job responsibility, Josh: Beat the Raiders at home. If you can't do that, everything else you do won't erase that first failure.

baja
10-27-2010, 06:56 AM
No especially when Haggan missed two tackles behind the line or scrimmage.

So because he missed two tackles in the back field he's lying about the teams support for Josh, I see how you got that. A player that visually plays poorly comes out in support of his coach and you say because you saw him miss two tackles you deduce he's lying about McD. You should work for Interpol.

jmz313
10-27-2010, 06:59 AM
Reading that is comforting.... Comforting as in: If the Line for week 15 reads:

Denver+44@Raiders-44... I'm gonna Bet a cool $20 on Denver... Lock it up!

Bob's your Information Minister
10-27-2010, 07:01 AM
So the players suck...because they knew what was coming and still couldn't stop it.

McDaniels picked the players...so he kinda sucks.

Bowlen hired McDaniels....so he kinda sucks.

You guys have hot cheerleaders, though.

Rabb
10-27-2010, 07:03 AM
This is your primary job responsibility, Josh: Beat the Raiders at home. If you can't do that, everything else you do won't erase that first failure.

Yep

fontaine
10-27-2010, 07:06 AM
So because he missed two tackles in the back field he's lying about the teams support for Josh, I see how you got that. A player that visually plays poorly comes out in support of his coach and you say because you saw him miss two tackles you deduce he's lying about McD. You should work for Interpol.


Settle down, I didn't say he was lying, just that his words don't mean a whole lot because his individual play was so poor. It has nothing to do with the head coach when the player consistently took wrong angles, got caught up in the line instead of attacking the hole as well as missing tackles.

BroncosSR
10-27-2010, 07:10 AM
These are just words. Clearly they don't play by them.

baja
10-27-2010, 07:11 AM
So the players suck...because they knew what was coming and still couldn't stop it.

McDaniels picked the players...so he kinda sucks.

Bowlen hired McDaniels....so he kinda sucks.

You guys have hot cheerleaders, though.

And you have 30,000 posts on their message board as a rival team's fan.

Is there a adjective adequate to describe that level of suck.

It's Bob suck = worse possible depth of suck.



O BTW holidays are coming fatty. stay slim so you can snag all that meaningful sex..;D

TonyR
10-27-2010, 07:16 AM
I like hearing that from Haggan, but it doesn't mean a hell of a lot.

I disagree. He could have answered that question many ways. He could have avoided it with something like "I'm not going to get into all of that." He could have been vague with something like "there's a lot of blame to go around." But he went out of his way to specifically say they were prepared and that it's not on the coach. That definitely means something. Not that that something makes me feel a whole lot better...

baja
10-27-2010, 07:18 AM
Settle down, I didn't say he was lying, just that his words don't mean a whole lot because his individual play was so poor. It has nothing to do with the head coach when the player consistently took wrong angles, got caught up in the line instead of attacking the hole as well as missing tackles.

Yes but the reference to Haggen in the article was about his support for his coach. You surmise because his play on the field was poor he therefore is somehow not qualified to assess the value of his head coach. I say brilliant reasoning chief inspector.

lostknight
10-27-2010, 07:21 AM
So much for all the speculation on the Gary Miller thread.

There can be a lot of muttering from different players. Or even muttering from the same players, who then have to do damage control. You just don't know. It's all speculation one way or another.

Beantown Bronco
10-27-2010, 07:21 AM
Those who see McDaniels' boyish looks and believe he will melt beneath the heat of criticism are forgetting his background.

As a fifth-grader, he needed a police escort to elementary school because his father, a highly successful high school coach in the prep football-crazed area of northern Ohio, received a death-threat letter that hinted at
kidnapping.


Man, that's effed up.

jhat01
10-27-2010, 07:25 AM
Even Marshall used to always say that McD had them prepared. I don't doubt McDs Xs and Os smarts. But that's not all that goes into it.

barryr
10-27-2010, 07:26 AM
Champ is also quoted too at the end of the article seemingly supporting the coach. Bannan as well. With as many highlight shows that are on anymore, if a player quits and don't feel like playing, everybody will know about it since the tapes can show this. Look at all the attention Randy Moss got for not playing hard over the years. No player wants to risk having a reputation as not playing hard and quitting easily.

If anything needs fixing, it's this horrid defense that wasn't exactly great before this last game.

fontaine
10-27-2010, 07:28 AM
Yes but the reference to Haggen in the article was about his support for his coach. You surmise because his play on the field was poor he therefore is somehow not qualified to assess the value of his head coach. I say brilliant reasoning chief inspector.

Yeah, I'm picky like that. I don't care for the opinions of players that played poorly enough to get run on for record setting points.

dsmoot
10-27-2010, 07:29 AM
Settle down, I didn't say he was lying, just that his words don't mean a whole lot because his individual play was so poor. It has nothing to do with the head coach when the player consistently took wrong angles, got caught up in the line instead of attacking the hole as well as missing tackles.


Just because an individual doesn't perform well then you discount (not lying?)the man's word and credibility??? You have serious issues. I hope I am completely wrong about my interpretation and if so, I apologize. A rule of life for all of us. PEOPLE WILL LET YOU DOWN. Even the best of us. Trust and forgive. Without it, we will have no friends and not be a friend.

baja
10-27-2010, 07:36 AM
Yeah, I'm picky like that. I don't care for the opinions of players that played poorly enough to get run on for record setting points.

So have you forgotten the issue? This is in response to rumors that McD has lost the team and the players laid down last week because he worked them too hard in practice. You know the day long shiit storm about the Gary Miller story. You don't think a player can assess how he feels about his head coach because he played a bad game. I say clever stuff there Watson.

Steve Prefontaine
10-27-2010, 07:36 AM
I disagree. He could have answered that question many ways. He could have avoided it with something like "I'm not going to get into all of that." He could have been vague with something like "there's a lot of blame to go around." But he went out of his way to specifically say they were prepared and that it's not on the coach. That definitely means something. Not that that something makes me feel a whole lot better...
I think KillerIcon means that they have to back up the talk in order for it to mean something.

Sassy
10-27-2010, 07:37 AM
This is your primary job responsibility, Josh: Beat the Raiders at home. If you can't do that, everything else you do won't erase that first failure.

Winning the West, the AFC and then a SB might do it! :sunshine:

Bob's your Information Minister
10-27-2010, 07:37 AM
And you have 30,000 posts on their message board as a rival team's fan.

Is there a adjective adequate to describe that level of suck.


I call it dedication to my craft.

baja
10-27-2010, 07:42 AM
I call it dedication to my craft.

And here I thought you had a new hobby seeking out cum dumpster sex.

That didn't work out for ya?

tsiguy96
10-27-2010, 07:43 AM
This is your primary job responsibility, Josh: Beat the Raiders at home. If you can't do that, everything else you do won't erase that first failure.

his job is to put the team in the best position he possibly can and motivate them to win. i dont think weve beat teh raiders at home in 5 years right?

Dagmar
10-27-2010, 07:46 AM
And here I thought you had a new hobby seeking out cum dumpster sex.

That didn't work out for ya?

Bob succeeds, just like jhns, when he is quoted by the board ad-nauseum.

Sassy
10-27-2010, 07:46 AM
Yep...last year...on a last minute fg I believe.
Ok bad memory...but we were at that home game.

Dagmar
10-27-2010, 07:47 AM
This is your primary job responsibility, Josh: Beat the Raiders at home. If you can't do that, everything else you do won't erase that first failure.

Pretty sure if he got us to the playoffs we wouldn't care that much.

Dagmar
10-27-2010, 07:49 AM
Yep...last year...on a last minute fg I believe.

September 16th 2007, is not last year.

Ray Finkle
10-27-2010, 07:49 AM
I like hearing that from Haggan, but it doesn't mean a hell of a lot.

yeah because a team captain has no weight on the issue...

Sassy
10-27-2010, 07:51 AM
September 16th 2007, is not last year.

Yep...but nm the question was in the last five years

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/09/09/broncos-41-raiders-14-oakland-has-no-answer-for-eddie-royal/

fontaine
10-27-2010, 07:53 AM
So have you forgotten the issue? This is in response to rumors that McD has lost the team and the players laid down last week because he worked them too hard in practice. You know the day long shiit storm about the Gary Miller story. You don't think a player can assess how he feels about his head coach because he played a bad game. I say clever stuff there Watson.

Sure, the player can assess how he feels (like Haggan) the same way those players assessed they way they felt in the Gary Miller story.

But that doesn't mean their feelings have any real value or validity when it comes to the point on whether McDaniels had this team prepared, did they quit, etc etc.

Bob's your Information Minister
10-27-2010, 07:55 AM
And here I thought you had a new hobby seeking out cum dumpster sex.

That didn't work out for ya?

The great thing about slutty girls who don't want relationships is it frees up all that time for me to hone my craft here on the Mane in the midst of a rare season.

It's a beautiful thing.

In fact, the other night afterwards, when we were chilling on the couch, I asked her if I could borrow her laptop.

Truly, truly beautiful.

And she also fed me donuts, so basically I hit the Bob Trifecta that night. That's some good living.

Dagmar
10-27-2010, 07:55 AM
Yep...but nm the question was in the last five years

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/09/09/broncos-41-raiders-14-oakland-has-no-answer-for-eddie-royal/

See, the question looks weird "have we beat the Raiders at Home in the last 5 years" you interpret as their home, I think he meant our home.

go_broncos
10-27-2010, 07:57 AM
No one will publicly say 'My Coach sucks..He needs to be fired'.

Sassy
10-27-2010, 07:57 AM
No one will publicly say 'My Coach sucks..He needs to be fired'.

No...but on the other hand...if they didn't believe in the coach...why say it?

Sassy
10-27-2010, 07:58 AM
See, the question looks weird "have we beat the Raiders at Home in the last 5 years" you interpret as their home, I think he meant our home.

Ahh ok...guess I need more coffee! LOL! :sunshine:

Rabb
10-27-2010, 07:59 AM
Pretty sure if he got us to the playoffs we wouldn't care that much.

to a degree, yes

it's a catch 22 though, to get to the playoffs we need to be beating divisional opponents

and I am sorry if I am over simplifying it, but I expect us to beat Oakland twice a year

Dagmar
10-27-2010, 08:02 AM
to a degree, yes

it's a catch 22 though, to get to the playoffs we need to be beating divisional opponents

and I am sorry if I am over simplifying it, but I expect us to beat Oakland twice a year

I understand, but we have been spoiled by their horribleness, as well as KC's. I would like to have a strong AFC West to compete in and make the playoffs, one of the reasons SD has shat the bed so often is they have had no competition. I would love to go 6-0 every year but would be happy with 4 - 2. (this made sense in my head.)

Steve Sewell
10-27-2010, 08:05 AM
I call it dedication to my craft.

I call it "failure at life".

HAT
10-27-2010, 08:10 AM
I understand, but we have been spoiled by their horribleness, as well as KC's. I would like to have a strong AFC West to compete in and make the playoffs, one of the reasons SD has shat the bed so often is they have had no competition. I would love to go 6-0 every year but would be happy with 4 - 2. (this made sense in my head.)

Agreed. 1 sweep & 2 splits....I'd take that every single year.

Bob's your Information Minister
10-27-2010, 08:12 AM
I understand, but we have been spoiled by their horribleness, as well as KC's.

::)

The Chiefs had three down years while they went through a rebuild and you want to compare them to the Raiders.

BS.

Mogulseeker
10-27-2010, 08:15 AM
No especially when Haggan missed two tackles behind the line or scrimmage.

That basically just solidifies the point - it was the players fault, even the good ones, for not performing.

Rabb
10-27-2010, 08:16 AM
Agreed. 1 sweep & 2 splits....I'd take that every single year.

and I would be ok with that also, but we really should be winning at home

I miss the old Mile High so badly

Mogulseeker
10-27-2010, 08:17 AM
::)

The Chiefs had three down years while they went through a rebuild and you want to compare them to the Raiders.

BS.

LOL

Three year rebuild? At this point last year, the Broncos looked pretty damn good too. Lets not get ahead of ourselves.

Steve Sewell
10-27-2010, 08:21 AM
::)

The Chiefs had three down years while they went through a rebuild and you want to compare them to the Raiders.

BS.

So Bobo, are we going to talk about a bet on the Chiefs this year? You referred to them as a "very good" team. IMO "very good" teams in the NFL win playoff games.

I will bet you 3 months banning that the Chiefs will not win a playoff game this year. You've been avoiding this since I asked you if you wanted to make it interesting.

baja
10-27-2010, 08:22 AM
Bob succeeds, just like jhns, when he is quoted by the board ad-nauseum.

Look dude this is my account I will quote whom ever I want when ever I want. Who the fuqk do you think you are with all your demands around here.

You don't like me quoting someone than put me on ignore but STFU about telling me how to run my membership here.

Bob's your Information Minister
10-27-2010, 08:25 AM
LOL

Three year rebuild? At this point last year, the Broncos looked pretty damn good too. Lets not get ahead of ourselves.

That's because the Broncos patched a bunch of holes with veterans and kept jettisoning old regime talent.

Trouble with Denver...you haven't nailed a draft class like the Chiefs did in '08.

Your rebuild is behind schedule.

If McDaniels is run out of town you'll have to go through another rebuild.

Could be lean years ahead. A lot more than three.

Pony Boy
10-27-2010, 08:28 AM
That basically just solidifies the point - it was the players fault, even the good ones, for not performing.

We just need 53 men committed to one purpose............just thought I would throw that out there, it worked for the faiders....:sunshine:

Killericon
10-27-2010, 08:56 AM
I think KillerIcon means that they have to back up the talk in order for it to mean something.

I more meant that it doesn't make 59 points feel any better. I'm not as swept up in the Josh thing, I think. Josh's fault, the players' fault...We still got our asses handed to us at home by the Raiders. It doesn't help.

baja
10-27-2010, 09:04 AM
Sure, the player can assess how he feels (like Haggan) the same way those players assessed they way they felt in the Gary Miller story.

But that doesn't mean their feelings have any real value or validity when it comes to the point on whether McDaniels had this team prepared, did they quit, etc etc.

Maybe I made an assumption that this conversation was about McD losing the players? Haggen, a well respected team captain, came out and publicly defended his coach which he did not have to. As far as I'm concerned this puts to bed the irresponsible Gary Miller rumor that Josh has lost the team. Clearly Haggen's level of play has no influence on his ability to deliver a candid assessment of how the players feel about there head coach.

To say the accuracy of Haggen's opinion about the skill set of McD is somehow dependent on how he played that Sunday is in the words of Mock rediculas.

Steve Prefontaine
10-27-2010, 09:08 AM
I more meant that it doesn't make 59 points feel any better. I'm not as swept up in the Josh thing, I think. Josh's fault, the players' fault...We still got our asses handed to us at home by the Raiders. It doesn't help.

got ya. 100% agree

Meck77
10-27-2010, 09:09 AM
There can be a lot of muttering from different players. Or even muttering from the same players, who then have to do damage control. You just don't know. It's all speculation one way or another.

Hell when I worked for minimum wage I still showed up for work and worked. No way these players would risk multi million dollar contracts, jobs they've worked for their entire lives, and their families future so they could teach Mcd a lesson.

bendog
10-27-2010, 09:11 AM
the personnel suck. It's not that difficult to see the team's problems. 7 top 50 picks, and he's gotten one possible defensive playmaker, and he's on IR. Doom's on IR. The only defensive playmakers shanahan had were DJ and Champ, who are both older and DJ's never really been a Mike or 3-4 guy. He's a 4-3 Will.

And they quit in that game.

Ray Finkle
10-27-2010, 09:13 AM
the personnel suck. It's not that difficult to see the team's problems. 7 top 50 picks, and he's gotten one possible defensive playmaker, and he's on IR. Doom's on IR. The only defensive playmakers shanahan had were DJ and Champ, who are both older and DJ's never really been a Mike or 3-4 guy. He's a 4-3 Will.

And they quit in that game.

Let's be honest, down 38-0 who wouldn't ease up a little? I mean it is human nature. I do not believe they quit, I believe they were playing defeated.

baja
10-27-2010, 09:17 AM
The great thing about slutty girls who don't want relationships is it frees up all that time for me to hone my craft here on the Mane in the midst of a rare season.

It's a beautiful thing.

In fact, the other night afterwards, when we were chilling on the couch, I asked her if I could borrow her laptop.

Truly, truly beautiful.

And she also fed me donuts, so basically I hit the Bob Trifecta that night. That's some good living.

Well if that is your trifecta in life I'm glad you are fulfilled or are you?

Broncomutt
10-27-2010, 09:29 AM
Only thing this tells me is some players don't like McDaniels and expressed it anonymously, while some players want to vocally show they DO support him.

Until I see 53 quotes of support, this just says "divided locker room".

But whatever, let's see if Haggan can step it up against the 49ers.

Actions>>Words :strong: Mario

bendog
10-27-2010, 09:42 AM
Let's be honest, down 38-0 who wouldn't ease up a little? I mean it is human nature. I do not believe they quit, I believe they were playing defeated.

Sure, but they're actually an OLD team with not much talent. People can complain about injuries but the fact is that even the guys injured aren't that good, besides Doom and maybe Ayers. The guy who is really impressive is Clady playing with the knee. I'd agree that injuries to the oline have been a problem, but McDaniels didn't address the oline until the past offseason. Harris has always had injury issues, so thinking he's a lock at RT for 16 games was not realistic.

No NFL player is going to come out and rebel. The only time I am aware of that that actually happened without the player being on the losing end was in Denver when the team turned on Ralston, and even then without TJ and Billy Thompson being in the mix and being well respected and noted as quality individuals who were tied to Denver as much or more than the coach.

dbfan4life
10-27-2010, 09:44 AM
Look dude this is my account I will quote whom ever I want when ever I want. Who the fuqk do you think you are with all your demands around here.

You don't like me quoting someone than put me on ignore but STFU about telling me how to run my membership here.

Stop quoting Bob! :sunshine:

Note the intense overreaction....Stay off the juice, baja! ROFL!

SonOfLe-loLang
10-27-2010, 09:47 AM
That's because the Broncos patched a bunch of holes with veterans and kept jettisoning old regime talent.

Trouble with Denver...you haven't nailed a draft class like the Chiefs did in '08.

Your rebuild is behind schedule.

If McDaniels is run out of town you'll have to go through another rebuild.

Could be lean years ahead. A lot more than three.

My God, you are so talking out of your ass.

Rabb
10-27-2010, 09:53 AM
Let's be honest, down 38-0 who wouldn't ease up a little? I mean it is human nature. I do not believe they quit, I believe they were playing defeated.

I know it's not 38, but I seem to remember Houston not laying down against the Bills

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Comeback_%28American_football%29

Mile High Shack
10-27-2010, 09:55 AM
so basically the premise of the article is, the players just suck.....

tsiguy96
10-27-2010, 10:02 AM
you dont see player responses about their coaches that intense very often.

Ray Finkle
10-27-2010, 10:03 AM
I know it's not 38, but I seem to remember Houston not laying down against the Bills

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Comeback_%28American_football%29

wow....over thousands of blows outs in the history of the NFL, you find one example....

SonOfLe-loLang
10-27-2010, 10:07 AM
To put the weight of the Denver Broncos problems on Josh's shoulders is short-sighted, though I understand its human nature to find one scapegoat in an effort to focus and simplify anger. People on this board, and football fans in general, often view coaches as if they are holding game controllers and playing Madden, fully forgetting that players play and coaches can only prepare.

I personally question some of Josh's playcalling, but in the case of the Raiders game (which, c'mon, is an outlier), there were three crucial mistakes in the first five minutes that had zero to do with coaching: a blown coverage (player error), a pick six (bad read/throw by Orton), and a fumble. As for the people who b**** about his drafting record (this year looks pretty good, the year before looks pretty bad), I'm not sure what more you need to be convinced that draft picks are half chance. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. For those a-holes that applaud great picks in later rounds, I'm reminded of what Shanahan said about Terrell Davis. To paraphrase: "we weren't smart picking him late in the draft, we were lucky. If we were smart, we would have picked him in the first round." Free agent pick ups I suppose are more of a measuring stick of player evaluation (since they are proven commodities) and we've done OK in that department. But still, humans are complex, you never know how they will react in a new environment until they are in the new environment.

But I think what people forget most is that football is a game of inches and the slightest difference and variable change the course of entire games and careers. To wit: the Jets game. If Renaldo Hill's hand touches Santonio Holmes chest instead of his facemask, the broncos go on to win that game and Josh is applauded for an amazing coaching effort. Instead, the PI is called, the Broncos lose, and Josh sucks once again. Sometimes the difference in coaching success is the 2 inches of a pass a QB underthrew or the 2 inches a running back didnt get because he didnt push a pile far enough, etc etc.

This whole rant isn't to say McDaniels has done an amazing job or that he isn't PART of the problem. But the broncos failures have more to do with the players on the field and, well, we've been a bit unlucky.

As for personnel...guess what, we don't get to pick all-star teams from scratch and Josh was left with a completely shredded defense (that he's made better, which isn't saying much, last week aside). You can question is offensive decisions (and I do), but he has designed an effective passing game and its not like his running game is some unique design that has never worked before in the NFL. The guys up front just havent done their jobs...at all. Also, for the people who claim he "gutted the talent," we lost Cutler (a bowlen decision...and one no one here aside from JHNS really cares about), Marshall (and he just wasnt happy here, but WR is hardly our problems), I'll give you Hillis and the Alphonso Smith trade (but Hillis and whichever draft pick came from the Smith trade probably isnt making us 13-3.) What other talent has he gutted exactly?

I don't know what the answer is, but anyone expecting a firing of McDaniels to be some magic little pill that will cure the broncos problems will be disappointed. I'm personally conflicted about his future and perhaps an attitude change in the mile high city is what this team needs to move on, but to simply say McDaniels is solely at fault is dumb.

broncofan2438
10-27-2010, 10:07 AM
But why the Raiders of all teams does this have to happen with?
Why on our field?
If its not the coach, then why the **** cant the players want to win?

Popps
10-27-2010, 10:07 AM
So much for all the speculation on the Gary Miller thread.

Well, to be fair... only a few people seemed to latch onto that nonsense.

Taco: Who is just in that mode this week... calling for back-up QBs to start over a guy with Pro Bowl numbers, etc.


Haters: The usual idiots who would love to believe something this stupid just to justify their hatred.


I've been saying since this came out that it sounded silly and didn't appear to have any footing in logic. So, this is no surprise that the players are openly mocking the notion.


Once again, you want to push a conspiracy theory... YOU are responsible for providing proof, not the sane people out there.

bendog
10-27-2010, 10:10 AM
This whole rant isn't to say McDaniels has done an amazing job or that he isn't PART of the problem. But the broncos failures have more to do with the players on the field and, well, we've been a bit unlucky.
--
McDaniels is responible for the roster.

baja
10-27-2010, 10:10 AM
Stop quoting Bob! :sunshine:

Note the intense overreaction....Stay off the juice, baja! ROFL!

LOL Memo; count no me quoting him when ever I feel like it.

Rabb
10-27-2010, 10:12 AM
wow....over thousands of blows outs in the history of the NFL, you find one example....

lol, I don't know why you are being ****ty...you said "who wouldn't ease up a little" so I found an example

my God, you can't say **** around here without being attacked can you?

Ray Finkle
10-27-2010, 10:14 AM
lol, I don't know why you are being ****ty...you said "who wouldn't ease up a little" so I found an example

my God, you can't say **** around here without being attacked can you?

that's right ****o! :D just kidding....

it's like a political forum here. You are either too right or too left and either way, you're post will be ripped apart and mocked.

plus, you popped my ballon :D

baja
10-27-2010, 10:15 AM
so basically the premise of the article is, the players just suck.....

The defense had a horrible game and the O had a sub par game. Injuries played into the D's play.

We had other games against good teams where we were able to play pretty good football.

It is not a given that the team will continue to play like they did against Oakland.

It is too early to panic.

Taco John
10-27-2010, 10:18 AM
We just need 53 men committed to one purpose............just thought I would throw that out there, it worked for the faiders....:sunshine:


I saw Josh wearing a similar shirt:

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/7596/eastcoastteams.jpg

Rabb
10-27-2010, 10:19 AM
that's right ****o! :D just kidding....

it's like a political forum here. You are either too right or too left and either way, you're post will be ripped apart and mocked.

plus, you popped my ballon :D

hug it out?

:~ohyah!:

Taco John
10-27-2010, 10:21 AM
Taco: Who is just in that mode this week... calling for back-up QBs to start over a guy with Pro Bowl numbers, etc.



I wouldn't say that I called for it. I did want to guage where people were on the idea after hearing the Tebow chants so loudly on Sunday. The season isn't over yet, but if we get to the point where we are more or less mathmatically eliminated, then I don't see the point of keeping Tebow on the bench if he's truly our future.

Rohirrim
10-27-2010, 10:23 AM
To put the weight of the Denver Broncos problems on Josh's shoulders is short-sighted, though I understand its human nature to find one scapegoat in an effort to focus and simplify anger. People on this board, and football fans in general, often view coaches as if they are holding game controllers and playing Madden, fully forgetting that players play and coaches can only prepare.

I personally question some of Josh's playcalling, but in the case of the Raiders game (which, c'mon, is an outlier), there were three crucial mistakes in the first five minutes that had zero to do with coaching: a blown coverage (player error), a pick six (bad read/throw by Orton), and a fumble. As for the people who b**** about his drafting record (this year looks pretty good, the year before looks pretty bad), I'm not sure what more you need to be convinced that draft picks are half chance. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. For those a-holes that applaud great picks in later rounds, I'm reminded of what Shanahan said about Terrell Davis. To paraphrase: "we weren't smart picking him late in the draft, we were lucky. If we were smart, we would have picked him in the first round." Free agent pick ups I suppose are more of a measuring stick of player evaluation (since they are proven commodities) and we've done OK in that department. But still, humans are complex, you never know how they will react in a new environment until they are in the new environment.

But I think what people forget most is that football is a game of inches and the slightest difference and variable change the course of entire games and careers. To wit: the Jets game. If Renaldo Hill's hand touches Santonio Holmes chest instead of his facemask, the broncos go on to win that game and Josh is applauded for an amazing coaching effort. Instead, the PI is called, the Broncos lose, and Josh sucks once again. Sometimes the difference in coaching success is the 2 inches of a pass a QB underthrew or the 2 inches a running back didnt get because he didnt push a pile far enough, etc etc.

This whole rant isn't to say McDaniels has done an amazing job or that he isn't PART of the problem. But the broncos failures have more to do with the players on the field and, well, we've been a bit unlucky.

As for personnel...guess what, we don't get to pick all-star teams from scratch and Josh was left with a completely shredded defense (that he's made better, which isn't saying much, last week aside). You can question is offensive decisions (and I do), but he has designed an effective passing game and its not like his running game is some unique design that has never worked before in the NFL. The guys up front just havent done their jobs...at all. Also, for the people who claim he "gutted the talent," we lost Cutler (a bowlen decision...and one no one here aside from JHNS really cares about), Marshall (and he just wasnt happy here, but WR is hardly our problems), I'll give you Hillis and the Alphonso Smith trade (but Hillis and whichever draft pick came from the Smith trade probably isnt making us 13-3.) What other talent has he gutted exactly?

I don't know what the answer is, but anyone expecting a firing of McDaniels to be some magic little pill that will cure the broncos problems will be disappointed. I'm personally conflicted about his future and perhaps an attitude change in the mile high city is what this team needs to move on, but to simply say McDaniels is solely at fault is dumb.

Nice post. Well thought out. But it doesn't address one issue - emotions. A big part of football, both playing and watching, is emotion. All of this post makes perfect sense. But I want the Broncos to beat the Raiders in our house. That's all. That's my emotional response. And when they can't do that, I feel like shipping the whole lot of them the **** out of town. Beat the Raiders! That is all. Beat the ****ing Raiders!

Taco John
10-27-2010, 10:26 AM
Nice post. Well thought out. But it doesn't address one issue - emotions. A big part of football, both playing and watching, is emotion. All of this post makes perfect sense. But I want the Broncos to beat the Raiders in our house. That's all. That's my emotional response. And when they can't do that, I feel like shipping the whole lot of them the **** out of town. Beat the Raiders! That is all. Beat the ****ing Raiders!

We came out to play the Jets with that kind of intensity. When it comes to playing AFC East opponents, our guys play with the ferociousness of Ray Lewis. But when it comes to playing AFC West opponents, we come out lackadasical and just see if things work. Experiment with a few things. Mix it up a little and get ready for our next big East Coast opponent.

Mile High Shack
10-27-2010, 10:27 AM
The defense had a horrible game and the O had a sub par game. Injuries played into the D's play.

We had other games against good teams where we were able to play pretty good football.

It is not a given that the team will continue to play like they did against Oakland.

It is too early to panic.

oh I'm not panicking.....at this point, I'm ok with losing if we can show improvement.

Play teams close, have a chance to win, maybe pull a few out, finish 7-9 with our injuries, then sure, I'm willing to give anything a chance next year.

Ray Finkle
10-27-2010, 10:34 AM
hug it out?

:~ohyah!:

too much coffee and too little sleep = an extra moody Finkle.

SonOfLe-loLang
10-27-2010, 10:35 AM
We came out to play the Jets with that kind of intensity. When it comes to playing AFC East opponents, our guys play with the ferociousness of Ray Lewis. But when it comes to playing AFC West opponents, we come out lackadasical and just see if things work. Experiment with a few things. Mix it up a little and get ready for our next big East Coast opponent.

This conspiracy theory of yours is really f'n weird.

baja
10-27-2010, 10:36 AM
I wouldn't say that I called for it. I did want to guage where people were on the idea after hearing the Tebow chants so loudly on Sunday. The season isn't over yet, but if we get to the point where we are more or less mathmatically eliminated, then I don't see the point of keeping Tebow on the bench if he's truly our future.

To be clear you did just in a post on another thread call for the immediate firing of Josh MCDaniels right?

CEH
10-27-2010, 10:36 AM
I think this gets back to the "wounded animal " thought I had before the NYJ game where for one game a team can rally. The organization pulled out all the stops to get a must win and the team responded, the coaches responded, the crowd/city responded . Everything was as good as it gets . I think teams are like 122-3 when they lead in total yardage, TOP and turnovers and we found a way to lose and reality set back in on the team

The BYE week should be rather interesting I suspect

Taco John
10-27-2010, 10:37 AM
This conspiracy theory of yours is really f'n weird.

Hilarious! Conspiracy theory!

http://img816.imageshack.us/img816/9056/conspiracy1.gif

bendog
10-27-2010, 10:38 AM
The BYE week should be rather interesting I suspect
-
Say goodbye, Josh (Sorry, I had too. It was just sitting there so I had to hit it.)

Taco John
10-27-2010, 10:39 AM
To be clear you did just in a post on another thread call for the firing of Josh MCDaniels right?

I don't care if he gets fired or not. I'm not calling for it. I just don't care. I don't see any reason to keep him around at this point. But he might show enough reason with 9 games left. I see no reason to stand in there for a guy who has our team ready to play East Coast teams, but lays down for our divisional opponents at home.

I don't care if Josh coaches the rest of the season or is fired tomorrow. I just simply don't care. I'll never forgive the guy for losing to Tom freaking Cable like that. I just don't care about the guy whatsoever anymore. If he sticks around, I hope he justifies the faith Pat is putting in him. But so far he's a failure and I don't care whether he sticks around or goes. We're in the same spot either way going into an uncertain 2011.

jhns
10-27-2010, 10:43 AM
It is great that the players will always defend the coach and each other. This is what McDaniels wanted when he built this team. The only problem is, this team first/nice guy attitude is not winning football games.

Rabb
10-27-2010, 10:44 AM
too much coffee and too little sleep = an extra moody Finkle.

all good buddy, I am still ass hurt from Sunday so I am pretty pissy as well

baja
10-27-2010, 10:46 AM
I don't care if he gets fired or not. I'm not calling for it. I just don't care. I don't see any reason to keep him around at this point. But he might show enough reason with 9 games left. I see no reason to stand in there for a guy who has our team ready to play East Coast teams, but lays down for our divisional opponents at home.

I don't care if Josh coaches the rest of the season or is fired tomorrow. I just simply don't care.

If Josh got replaced tomorrow it would set the team back at least 2 years compared to keeping him and having him get things moving forward. It would be fool hardy to not let him at a minimum finish the season

You should care if he is fired given that there is no way to know if he will pan out or not and the consequences if he is fired now.

Firing him now would be a huge premature ejaculation for the Denver Broncos.

Rohirrim
10-27-2010, 11:04 AM
If I was Bowlen, the second half of this season, starting at Wembley, would be Josh's opportunity to show me something. And the key to success or failure would entirely depend on the outcomes of the remaining AFCW games. Five games. Make it, or break it.

Popps
10-27-2010, 11:06 AM
If Josh got replaced tomorrow it would set the team back at least 2 years compared to keeping him and having him get things moving forward. It would be fool hardy to not let him at a minimum finish the season

You should care if he is fired given that there is no way to know if he will pan out or not and the consequences if he is fired now.

Firing him now would be a huge premature ejaculation for the Denver Broncos.

Excellent, and 100% correct.


We live in the instant gratification era, though. Most fans aren't going to be able to understand that it takes a few years for a coach to really get his system fully in place, and you need healthy players to do that. This team was gutted, and that's a GOOD thing. But, it's going to take time, and healthy players.

Once again, give McD his healthy roster... and he's got a winning record this year, and we're not having this conversation.

In fact, we win on Sunday, and people are probably speculating about playoffs around here.

So, it was an ugly loss... but you don't define a team/coach's career from one single example.

He'll get another year, and hopefully for our sake... will have healthy players to work with.

Taco John
10-27-2010, 11:10 AM
If Josh got replaced tomorrow it would set the team back at least 2 years compared to keeping him and having him get things moving forward. It would be fool hardy to not let him at a minimum finish the season

You should care if he is fired given that there is no way to know if he will ban out or not.

Firing him now would be a huge premature ejaculation for the Denver Broncos.

I don't believe it. I don't see how it would set us back any further than this rock bottom loss. Are we going to give the Raiders another scoring record on our home field if another coach comes in? I doubt it.

I don't care if he's fired, I don't care if he stays. I'm not convinced we'd miss a beat if we canned him tomorrow and promoted Don Martindale to interim head coach. We might actually improve because it would wake up the players.

Sorry. I don't care about the guy or his plan anymore. I'm just along for the ride at this point hoping he shows a return on the faith that Pat has placed in him. We've won 4 of our last 17 games. I just don't care about the guy any more. I'm tapped, fresh out of care for the guy.

I absolutely *want* to believe. Maybe getting some distance on this Raider debacle will help. But right now, after watching the second Raider blow-out of our Broncos in our own home stadium, I just don't care about Josh McDaniels and see no reason to believe in his program.

Ambiguous
10-27-2010, 11:10 AM
If Josh got replaced tomorrow it would set the team back at least 2 years compared to keeping him and having him get things moving forward. It would be fool hardy to not let him at a minimum finish the season

You should care if he is fired given that there is no way to know if he will pan out or not and the consequences if he is fired now.

Firing him now would be a huge premature ejaculation for the Denver Broncos.

This is kind of how I felt before this season, but at some point you need to cut losses and hope we don't dig ourselves any deeper. I agree he should finish out the season - at this point I'd say we have to make the playoffs this year to save his job. Good riddance!

24champ
10-27-2010, 11:26 AM
I don't believe it. I don't see how it would set us back any further than this rock bottom loss. Are we going to give the Raiders another scoring record on our home field if another coach comes in? I doubt it.

I don't care if he's fired, I don't care if he stays. I'm not convinced we'd miss a beat if we canned him tomorrow and promoted Don Martindale to interim head coach. We might actually improve because it would wake up the players.

Sorry. I don't care about the guy or his plan anymore. I'm just along for the ride at this point hoping he shows a return on the faith that Pat has placed in him. We've won 4 of our last 17 games. I just don't care about the guy any more. I'm tapped, fresh out of care for the guy.

I absolutely *want* to believe. Maybe getting some distance on this Raider debacle will help. But right now, after watching the second Raider blow-out of our Broncos in our own home stadium, I just don't care about Josh McDaniels and see no reason to believe in his program.

I don't think you ever did care about Josh McDaniels.

baja
10-27-2010, 11:38 AM
I don't believe it. I don't see how it would set us back any further than this rock bottom loss. Are we going to give the Raiders another scoring record on our home field if another coach comes in? I doubt it.

I don't care if he's fired, I don't care if he stays. I'm not convinced we'd miss a beat if we canned him tomorrow and promoted Don Martindale to interim head coach. We might actually improve because it would wake up the players.

Sorry. I don't care about the guy or his plan anymore. I'm just along for the ride at this point hoping he shows a return on the faith that Pat has placed in him. We've won 4 of our last 17 games. I just don't care about the guy any more. I'm tapped, fresh out of care for the guy.

I absolutely *want* to believe. Maybe getting some distance on this Raider debacle will help. But right now, after watching the second Raider blow-out of our Broncos in our own home stadium, I just don't care about Josh McDaniels and see no reason to believe in his program.

I'll leave this alone because there is nothing I can say that will matter one iota to you. Your's is 100% emotional reaction.

If we win decisively next week you will be back in his corner once again.

If we lose to KC after the bye you can save time and cut and paste your above post.

When you make the decision to change head coaches it is not a lite decision. There are very long term ramifications and we are in the middle of that right now. Fire Josh and we go back to the beginning of that time cycle and when you are not willing to be patient beyond 22 games for the new guy you will call for his head too, in short you will become Al Davis, Mr. Rinse & Repeat.

Taco John
10-27-2010, 11:39 AM
I don't think you ever did care about Josh McDaniels.

So what?

What do I care? I don't care what anybody thinks about my level of belief in Josh.

I'm more than willing to admit that I've been skeptical of him from day one. I wouldn't have hired the guy, and said so during the hiring period. I wanted a guy who had more experience dealing with players, not just someone with theoretical offensive knowledge. I've never believed that a guy with his inexperience would be ready for anything but an internship where he learns at our expense. But I gave him a fair chance. I didn't blame him for Bowlen's decisions, and I gave him a fair chance.

Maybe others still have patience reserves, but mine are tapped out. I don't care about the guy any more, and don't care what anybody thinks about it, or whether or not they believe that I ever did care for him. I'll stay true to myself. I know the time I've put in trying to understand him and his system. I know the losses I've looked past trying to find positives. And I know why I'm done caring about him. It doesn't matter to me whether you validate it or not.

baja
10-27-2010, 11:41 AM
Just think if Al Davis had been patient with Shanny it might be Oakland sporting those two trophies for 97 & 98 instead of us.

boppool
10-27-2010, 11:50 AM
Is this norm for players to address their headcoach by first names in NFL?
Honestly, I haven't heard other teams' players do that.

I understand players have close relationships with their coaches, but I think it's more of respect issue, especially when they're talking to media.

Is it just me, or anyone else find it odd?

WABronco
10-27-2010, 11:52 AM
Keep on keepin' on, guys.

(2-5)

Taco John
10-27-2010, 11:55 AM
I'll leave this alone because there is nothing I can say that will matter one iota to you. Your's is 100% emotional reaction.

Maybe it is. I think winning 4 of 17 games provides plenty of quantitative and logical points of analysis though. But certainly, emotion plays into it. I'll never forgive a guy coaching the Broncos who loses by blow-outs to Tom Cable on our own home field though. There's nothing that is going to turn those blow-outs around at this point. They've happened and are in the books.


If we win decisively next week you will be back in his corner once again.

Don't count on it. Beating a 1-6 team as bad as the 49ers should be a cake walk. They're floundering right now, and switching quarterbacks while crossing the ocean to play. It's going to take more than a blow out of a bad team to win me back over. I want to see this team come out and win 4 of our last 8 games. I don't think this is unrealistic at all.


When you make the decision to change head coaches it is not a lite decision. There are very long term ramifications and we are in the middle of that right now. Fire Josh and we go back to the beginning of that time cycle and when you are not willing to be patient beyond 22 games for the new guy you will call for his head too, in short you will become Al Davis, Mr. Rinse & Repeat.

I just don't believe it. I understand what you're saying and why you are saying it. But I just don't believe that it's true in this case. I don't think we're any closer today than we were last year. In fact, I believe we've actually regressed. I'm just not convinced it's the kind of "one step back, two steps forward" type of regression. We don't have any idea whether or not we have a runningback worth keeping or whether our offensive line is set for the next 5 years. We don't get any consistent pressure on defense. Our team is inconsistent in effort from week to week. I mean, look at this approval graph for Josh:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/sportsnation/coach?coachId=73

When you look at that it doesn't just reflect wins and losses, but it reflects how the fans thought of the effort the team put in. This team is erratic. It's not steady. These guys are playing up one week, and down the very next week.

I would love to believe that this is just about one play here and one play there and we're 5-2. But this team isn't showing that kind of consistency.

Winning 4 of the last 8 games isn't an unreasonable expectation given our schedule.

Popps
10-27-2010, 11:56 AM
I don't believe it. I don't see how it would set us back any further than this rock bottom loss. Are we going to give the Raiders another scoring record on our home field if another coach comes in? I doubt it.
.

Dude, did you happen to catch Shanahn's last go at a division rival... with the playoffs on the line, no less? That was much more embarrassing than Sunday, to me. Playoffs on line, national TV... and we come out looking like a JV team. Cutler throwing INTs, DJ Williams just jogging around. Talk about unprepared.

But, we were banged up and lacked talent.

See, coaches need talent to win. I know people play fantasy football and Madden video games at home, but this isn't quite the same thing.

In real football, you need healthy players to win games... and sometimes putting together a winning franchise takes more than 1.5 seasons.


McDaniels may well end up a failure, but it's too early to tell... and you certainly don't base your decision on the emotional reaction to a single loss.

Thankfully, our owner is more sensible... and will allow the staff time to get players healthy, and bring more talent into the fold.

Taco John
10-27-2010, 11:57 AM
Just think if Al Davis had been patient with Shanny it might be Oakland sporting those two trophies for 97 & 98 instead of us.


I don't think so. I think Shanahan had to experience that low point in order to achieve the kind of focus that he needed to become a champion. He learned a lot using that focus combined with his initiation into the 49ers program.

I don't know if Shanahan could have turned around the Raiders at that point. Who can really say?

Popps
10-27-2010, 11:59 AM
Don't count on it. Beating a 1-6 team as bad as the 49ers should be a cake walk. They're floundering right now, and switching quarterbacks while crossing the ocean to play. It's going to take more than a blow out of a bad team to win me back over. .

"Win you back over?"

Interesting. So, you're against us this weekend?


Also, I find it interesting that you're making excuses for the 49ers team, yet don't seem to recognize the issues our team has had to face this season.

By the way, the 49ers have some talent on that team. Probably no less than the Raiders. (Who they just beat.) I hope the team isn't overlooking them the way you are. They've been competitive in almost all of their games, and may well be playing to save their own coach.

****, Taco. You were turning the corner as a poster, imo. You were actually becoming interesting to read. Bummer to see you revert to your old reactionary, emotional ways.

Mr.Meanie
10-27-2010, 11:59 AM
Can we all agree to settle down on the "fire mcd" crap? He's not getting fired after 1.5 seasons, and not even after 2. He will get 3 seasons to rebuild and see what we have before any decisions are made, like any rebuilding organization should allow.

I swear, football fans on the internet seem to be primarily made up of emotional women on the rag.

Popps
10-27-2010, 12:00 PM
Can we all agree to settle down on the "fire mcd" crap? He's not getting fired after 1.5 seasons, and not even after 2. He will get 3 seasons to rebuild and see what we have before any decisions are made, like any rebuilding organization should allow.

I swear, football fans on the internet seem to be primarily made up of emotional women on the rag.

The smart people can agree.

You'll have to settle for that.

The rest will remain in their bunkers, waiting for the end times.

Rohirrim
10-27-2010, 12:01 PM
Just think if Al Davis had been patient with Shanny it might be Oakland sporting those two trophies for 97 & 98 instead of us.

Al Davis' draft decisions had more to do with screwing up that team than his coaching decisions. That, and the Broncos had Elway. Major difference.

Taco John
10-27-2010, 12:05 PM
McDaniels may well end up a failure, but it's too early to tell... and you certainly don't base your decision on the emotional reaction to a single loss.


We've won 4 of our last 17 games suffering a blow-out to each of our divisional rivals at home - twice to the Tom Cable Raiders, including the cherry on top of the cake which was a franchise record for the Raiders on our home field. Who is talking about single losses here? Why is anybody pretending that we don't have a body of work to evaluate?




Thankfully, our owner is more sensible... and will allow the staff time to get players healthy, and bring more talent into the fold.

We'll see what the definition of "sensible" is. Schefter is already talking publicly about the type of coach Bowlen might replace Josh with.

24champ
10-27-2010, 12:06 PM
The smart people can agree.

You'll have to settle for that.

The rest will remain in their bunkers, waiting for the end times.

Some prematurely came out of their bunkers....as we can see on this thread and in the Gary Miller thread.

TDmvp
10-27-2010, 12:07 PM
I'm just being facetious "sorta", But who really give a $hit what the players say after how they are performing ...

I would buy this if most guy on the team was playing well , and we lost lots of close games , but you could see we was on the rise ...

But we look like the 90's Bengals at this point , and I didn't care what players say just about ever ...

Rohirrim
10-27-2010, 12:08 PM
BTW, I totally disagree with those who are treating this as just another loss. This was a monumental scar on this franchise that will still be referred to 20 years from now. This was the Pearl Harbor of the Broncos. The idea that next week is just "business as usual" completely denies the reality of what just happened. If this had happened in the 70s, Broncos fans would have been marching to the coach's house with torches. I find it unbelievable that anybody can just "ho-hum" this catastrophe.

Taco John
10-27-2010, 12:08 PM
I don't care to see Josh fired at the bye or anything. I just wouldn't care if that's what happened.

I'd rather see him finish out the season and see if he can win 4 of the last 8 games and then evaluate from there.

Taco John
10-27-2010, 12:11 PM
"Win you back over?"

Interesting. So, you're against us this weekend?

I'm never against the Broncos. I just don't care about whether or not Josh is coaching them or not.



****, Taco. You were turning the corner as a poster, imo. You were actually becoming interesting to read. Bummer to see you revert to your old reactionary, emotional ways.

Eh, well... Losing takes its toll. I'm looking forward to you starting to get interesting again myself. Being constantly proud of losing efforts isn't particularly compelling.

24champ
10-27-2010, 12:13 PM
We've won 4 of our last 17 games suffering a blow-out to each of our divisional rivals at home - twice to the Tom Cable Raiders, including the cherry on top of the cake which was a franchise record for the Raiders on our home field. Who is talking about single losses here? Why is anybody pretending that we don't have a body of work to evaluate?


Cherry picking stats. Lets look at the body of work...

McD is now 10-13 in his first 23 as head coach of the Broncos.

Shanny was 11-12 in his last 23 as head coach of the Broncos.

We'll see what the definition of "sensible" is. Schefter is already talking publicly about the type of coach Bowlen might replace Josh with.

Nothing wrong with speculation, least Schefter doesn't put out "reports" of a team revolting against the coach because practice was too hard in the prior week. ::)

cutthemdown
10-27-2010, 12:14 PM
Well Haggan's problem is he is on the level of a Nate Webster, Boss Bailey, and won't be starting in the NFL ever again once he leaves Denver. He's just not very good.

Popps
10-27-2010, 12:15 PM
I'm never against the Broncos. I just don't care about whether or not Josh is coaching them or not.

.

Not caring is one thing... claiming we'd be better to dump a coach 1.5 years into a rebuilding plan that was likely to take 2-3 years is just silly.

As for me, I'm never "proud of a loss." Not sure where you get that idea. I was disgusted about Sunday. I just have enough footing as a fan that I'm not going to panic because of a single example.

Am I proud of some efforts that might have ended in defeat? Sure. I want to see this team play hard, win or lose.

Then again, I'm just a fan. I'm not out pushing multiple agendas and conspiracy theories in order to rile up the masses on a forum.

Popps
10-27-2010, 12:17 PM
Well Haggan's problem is he is on the level of a Nate Webster, Boss Bailey, and won't be starting in the NFL ever again once he leaves Denver. He's just not very good.

You're a whiny bitch and 95% of your posts are trash, but I'll agree with you here.

He's a little better on the inside. Probably not even a liability on the inside, but he's horrible on the outside.

He looked particularly bad on Sunday.

Taco John
10-27-2010, 12:17 PM
Cherry picking stats. Lets look at the body of work...

McD is now 10-13 in his first 23 as head coach of the Broncos.

Shanny was 11-12 in his last 23 as head coach of the Broncos.


Who cares about Shanahan's record when he left? Shanahan is coaching for Washington right now. Using the record that got Shanahan run out of town isn't a particularly compelling argument.

Further, Josh's 6-0 start means nothing to me at this point. It appears to be a fluke based on a new offense that nobody had any film on. Now everybody has film on it, and he's lost 13 of the last 17 games. I don't see that as cherry picking at all.

Beantown Bronco
10-27-2010, 12:18 PM
When does Kenny Peterson take the podium?

Rohirrim
10-27-2010, 12:18 PM
BTW, Taco. Beautiful baby. :thumbs:

24champ
10-27-2010, 12:19 PM
Further, Josh's 6-0 start means nothing to me at this point

Course it doesn't count to you, it doesn't fit in with your agenda.

Color me shocked Taco...

TDmvp
10-27-2010, 12:20 PM
Who cares about Shanahan's record when he left? Shanahan is coaching for Washington right now. Using the record that got Shanahan run out of town isn't a particularly compelling argument.

Further, Josh's 6-0 start means nothing to me at this point. It appears to be a fluke based on a new offense that nobody had any film on. Now everybody has film on it, and he's lost 13 of the last 17 games. I don't see that as cherry picking at all.



13 of 17 ... please stop saying that out loud ...

This may actually be the worst streak I can remember in my time ... only being a Broncos fan since 1985ish I don't remember anything worse than losing 13 of 17...

Popps
10-27-2010, 12:21 PM
Who cares about Shanahan's record when he left? Shanahan is coaching for Washington right now. Using the record that got Shanahan run out of town isn't a particularly compelling argument.

Further, Josh's 6-0 start means nothing to me at this point. It appears to be a fluke based on a new offense that nobody had any film on. Now everybody has film on it, and he's lost 13 of the last 17 games. I don't see that as cherry picking at all.

Nobody had film on it? It's the NFL, Taco. No one was surprised by what we were doing last year. We just played better in the first 6 games than we did the rest of the season. We played over our heads. We were a .500 team at best last year, and we ended up .500.


Do you have proof that teams used film that they "didn't have" to beat us later in the season? Or, could it be that we just played better teams.... and then had struggles as we switched our own schemes, lost Harris, etc?

I mean, this is conspiracy theory #3 or #4 for the day. (I'm losing track.)

You need to start providing some proof if any of these tinfoil-hat deals are going to hold water.

Taco John
10-27-2010, 12:21 PM
Course it doesn't count to you, it doesn't fit in with your agenda.

You're right. My agenda is watching the Broncos win, and what is happening now doesn't fit in with that agenda AT ALL.

Hearing my 4 year old saying "Daddy, the white guys (Raiders Jerseys) run a lot faster than the black guys (he thinks the Broncos home jerseys are black)" never gets old.

Taco John
10-27-2010, 12:24 PM
Nobody had film on it? It's the NFL, Taco. No one was surprised by what we were doing last year. We just played better in the first 6 games than we did the rest of the season. We played over our heads. We were a .500 team at best last year, and we ended up .500.


Do you have proof that teams used film that they "didn't have" to beat us later in the season? Or, could it be that we just played better teams.... and then had struggles as we switched our own schemes, lost Harris, etc?

I mean, this is conspiracy theory #3 or #4 for the day. (I'm losing track.)

You need to start providing some proof if any of these tinfoil-hat deals are going to hold water.


I absolutely love this comical abuse of the word "conspiracy."

http://img816.imageshack.us/img816/9056/conspiracy1.gif


It's like "I don't have a good argument here, so I'll just throw around the word 'conspiracy' a lot and hope that will replace the need to make one."

Beantown Bronco
10-27-2010, 12:25 PM
"Daddy, the white guys run a lot faster than the black guys"

That's not something you hear every day....

Popps
10-27-2010, 12:27 PM
You're right. My agenda is watching the Broncos win, and what is happening now doesn't fit in with that agenda AT ALL.

Hearing my 4 year old saying "Daddy, the white guys (Raiders Jerseys) run a lot faster than the black guys (he thinks the Broncos home jerseys are black)" never gets old.

Really? I just enjoy watching the game with my little girl. We have fun either way. Try not to let the game ruin your good times, man. It's not healthy.

But, if you "just want us to win," you'll certainly be better served not slamming on the brakes 18 months into a rebuild, as if you do... you'll guarantee yourself at least another two years of this very thing.

Taco John
10-27-2010, 12:28 PM
That's not something you hear every day....

LOL! I had to laugh at the innocent double entendre myself. I was blessed to have him in the room to keep my spirits up during that loss. We had some laughs despite the results. But he now parrots the line "you've got to be kidding me" at just about everything. ROFL!

Taco John
10-27-2010, 12:30 PM
But, if you "just want us to win," you'll certainly be better served not slamming on the brakes 18 months into a rebuild, as if you do... you'll guarantee yourself at least another two years of this very thing.


Like I said, I'm not calling for Josh to be fired. I just don't care if he is. I don't believe firing him will set us back any further than we are because we're going to go into 2011 with the same questions either way. At this point, I see no reason to believe that Josh is going to make it past year three of his tenure. Maybe I'll feel differently after December. Going .500 after our bye would go a long ways towards building confidence back up.

worm
10-27-2010, 12:33 PM
BTW, I totally disagree with those who are treating this as just another loss. This was a monumental scar on this franchise that will still be referred to 20 years from now. This was the Pearl Harbor of the Broncos. The idea that next week is just "business as usual" completely denies the reality of what just happened. If this had happened in the 70s, Broncos fans would have been marching to the coach's house with torches. I find it unbelievable that anybody can just "ho-hum" this catastrophe.

You can tell who the recent Bronco fans are by how they feel on this.

I really doubt anybody who was a fan of this team in the lean, early years could discard the effort against the Raiders as 'just one game'.

They call it Raider Week for a reason. A reason built on decades of contempt.

There were times (a lot of them) when you got beat by a better Raider team back then. However, you gave as good as you got. You weren't pushed around. You weren't soft. You had pride. You didn't give up.

That is what made the 1977 AFCCG so special when they broke through.

Popps, the nascent fan, would like us to believe this game and failings this season are all due to injuries. That everything will be better when some players get healthy. That pat answer doesn't explain what I see happening on the field. It doesn't explain Quinn lining up wrong, hand picked players not knowing their assignments or basic things like when to be on the field. It doesn't explain curious play calling. The dumb penalities. It doesn't explain a lot of things.

Taken individually, these things are not Earth shattering. However, when you step back and look at them collectively, any sensible fan should be concerned about the direction this team is headed.

If what we had was a team that fought hard, limited the mental mistakes and still lost, then you could argue that it was just a bitter lose to a hated rival, that players returning from injuries would cure us. What I see is something deeper than that. More systemic. Much harder to fix.

Broncomutt
10-27-2010, 12:33 PM
i absolutely love this comical abuse of the word "conspiracy."

http://img816.imageshack.us/img816/9056/conspiracy1.gif


it's like "i don't have a good argument here, so i'll just throw around the word 'conspiracy' a lot and hope that will replace the need to make one."

qft!

Mile High Shack
10-27-2010, 12:35 PM
You can tell who the recent Bronco fans are by how they feel on this.

I really doubt anybody who was a fan of this team in the lean, early years could discard the effort against the Raiders as 'just one game'.

They call it Raider Week for a reason. A reason built on decades of contempt.

There were times (a lot of them) when you got beat by a better Raider team back then. However, you gave as good as you got. You weren't pushed around. You weren't soft. You had pride. You didn't give up.

That is what made the 1977 AFCCG so special when they broke through.

Popps, the nascent fan, would like us to believe this game and failings this season are all due to injuries. That everything will be better when some players get healthy. That pat answer doesn't explain what I see happening on the field. It doesn't explain Quinn lining up wrong, hand picked players not knowing their assignments or basic things like when to be on the field. It doesn't explain curious play calling. The dumb penalities. It doesn't explain a lot of things.

Taken individually, these things are not Earth shattering. However, when you step back and look at them collectively, any sensible fan should be concerned about the direction this team is headed.

If what we had was a team that fought hard, limited the mental mistakes and still lost, then you could argue that it was just a bitter lose to a hated rival, that players returning from injuries would cure us. What I see is something deeper than that. More systemic. Much harder to fix.

exactly....that's what scares me

put a few wins together and I will start to believe again, but my faith is shaken in this dude, he talks a good game, but doesn't put it out there on the field

broncosteven
10-27-2010, 12:40 PM
My 2, almost 3 year old son and I had a great Father son day just the 2 of us. We were amped for the game, it started and everynow and then he would bust out a "Go Broncos" after a pick 6 or fumble or punt or long mCfadden run.

I did think there was a chance with 5 minutes left in the 1st Quarter down 21 that they could still make a game of it but it just got worse from there.

I expected the team to be firey and mirror it's HC which I guess it did as mCd didn't seem to move much from his spot on the sideline, he just took the ass pounding along with his team. They were lucky Cable called off the dogs but there was one play where my boy got the Go Broncos out at the right time, after a Knowgain TD so GO BRONCOS!

24champ
10-27-2010, 12:42 PM
You're right. My agenda is watching the Broncos win, and what is happening now doesn't fit in with that agenda AT ALL.


Yeah of course it is...remind me again how you felt when the Broncos were doing nothing but winning games back in the Plummer days?

Winning is your agenda? What is this comedy hour?Ha!

SonOfLe-loLang
10-27-2010, 12:44 PM
I absolutely love this comical abuse of the word "conspiracy."

http://img816.imageshack.us/img816/9056/conspiracy1.gif


It's like "I don't have a good argument here, so I'll just throw around the word 'conspiracy' a lot and hope that will replace the need to make one."

Except thats exactly what you did earlier with your strange "we only try against east coast teams" BS

Rohirrim
10-27-2010, 12:44 PM
exactly....that's what scares me

put a few wins together and I will start to believe again, but my faith is shaken in this dude, he talks a good game, but doesn't put it out there on the field

This is my point - my faith is shaken. I was standing up for the guy until this game. Through the whole Cutler, Sheffler, Hillis stuff and everything else. But there are no excuses for this kind of debacle. No words can do anything about it.

I'm not going to personalize it on this board to anybody, and everybody's "fandom" I consider entirely personal, including my own. But this loss is exponentially worse than anything I've seen in the McDaniels era. Hell, I didn't mind the Jets loss that much because the team fought hard to the end. Who knows? Maybe TJ is right? Maybe Josh is still emphazing old rivalries and the team is picking up on it, fighting hard agains the Jets and then taking it down a notch against the Raiders? Whatever the excuse is, it's inexcusable.

AFAIC, Josh has five AFCW contests to make up for it.

Taco John
10-27-2010, 12:46 PM
Yeah of course it is...remind me again how you felt when the Broncos were doing nothing but winning games back in the Plummer days?

Winning is your agenda? What is this comedy hour?Ha!

Yeah, I'll remind you: I felt like this is fun, but when we get to a big game, Plummer is probably going to choke like he is statistically prone to doing during a big game, so I'll enjoy it for what its worth and hope that he bucks the trend when the playoffs come.

And I felt terrible when it panned out that he didn't buck the trend. I didn't want to see Plummer fail. I wanted to see him succeed.

Taco John
10-27-2010, 12:48 PM
Except thats exactly what you did earlier with your strange "we only try against east coast teams" BS

In the Josh McDaniels era, we've put in our best efforts against East Coast teams, even in losses. We've put in our worst efforts against division rivals at home. I'm not sure how this is a "conspiracy" but whatever. Facts are facts.

SonOfLe-loLang
10-27-2010, 12:50 PM
In the Josh McDaniels era, we've put in our best efforts against East Coast teams, even in losses. We've put in our worst efforts against division rivals at home. I'm not sure how this is a "conspiracy" but whatever. Facts are facts.

If youre saying that this is intentional and not a coincidence, which im sure it is, then youre suggesting something that resembles a conspiracy

24champ
10-27-2010, 12:51 PM
Yeah, I'll remind you: I felt like this is fun, but when we get to a big game, Plummer is probably going to choke like he is statistically prone to doing during a big game, so I'll enjoy it for what its worth and hope that he bucks the trend when the playoffs come.

And I felt terrible when it panned out that he didn't buck the trend. I didn't want to see Plummer fail. I wanted to see him succeed.

History revisionism is fun.

baja
10-27-2010, 12:52 PM
Maybe it is. I think winning 4 of 17 games provides plenty of quantitative and logical points of analysis though. But certainly, emotion plays into it. I'll never forgive a guy coaching the Broncos who loses by blow-outs to Tom Cable on our own home field though. There's nothing that is going to turn those blow-outs around at this point. They've happened and are in the books.




Don't count on it. Beating a 1-6 team as bad as the 49ers should be a cake walk. They're floundering right now, and switching quarterbacks while crossing the ocean to play. It's going to take more than a blow out of a bad team to win me back over. I want to see this team come out and win 4 of our last 8 games. I don't think this is unrealistic at all.




I just don't believe it. I understand what you're saying and why you are saying it. But I just don't believe that it's true in this case. I don't think we're any closer today than we were last year. In fact, I believe we've actually regressed. I'm just not convinced it's the kind of "one step back, two steps forward" type of regression. We don't have any idea whether or not we have a runningback worth keeping or whether our offensive line is set for the next 5 years. We don't get any consistent pressure on defense. Our team is inconsistent in effort from week to week. I mean, look at this approval graph for Josh:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/sportsnation/coach?coachId=73

When you look at that it doesn't just reflect wins and losses, but it reflects how the fans thought of the effort the team put in. This team is erratic. It's not steady. These guys are playing up one week, and down the very next week.

I would love to believe that this is just about one play here and one play there and we're 5-2. But this team isn't showing that kind of consistency.

Winning 4 of the last 8 games isn't an unreasonable expectation given our schedule.

Here is what we know for sure, somewhere between your vision and my (still held original) vision is where Josh will shake out. Neither of us know where that is right now. I think it would be foolish to make a call on him now. Do you think the Broncos will turn the season into something substantially better with a new coach today?

I will wait until the end of the season to decide if i, as a fan, will entertain a coaching change. Any sooner move offers no up side and a steep down side.

Taco John
10-27-2010, 12:52 PM
If youre saying that this is intentional and not a coincidence, which im sure it is, then youre suggesting something that resembles a conspiracy


Intentional... Coincidence... Who cares? All I know is that it's true.

TheReverend
10-27-2010, 12:57 PM
If youre saying that this is intentional and not a coincidence, which im sure it is, then youre suggesting something that resembles a conspiracy

I think saying someone puts more effort into something more personal that they have more experience with vs something else doesn't make a conspiracy...

Popps
10-27-2010, 12:58 PM
Popps, the nascent fan, would like us to believe this game and failings this season are all due to injuries. That everything will be better when some players get healthy. That pat answer doesn't explain what I see happening on the field. .

Where did I say ALL our issues?

If you're going to ramble on for 10 paragraphs, at least try to get your facts straight.

Here are the statements I've made...

1. I think we'd have a winning record RIGHT NOW with the team we were supposed to field. (Do you disagree with that?)

2. I thought we'd be around .500 at best this season, even healthy. (By season's end.)

3. Even Shanahan couldn't overcome a rash of injuries with a team that lacked a complete roster to begin with.

4. We're better served by giving the staff a chance to fully implement their system than we were starting over again, as we'll add at least another 2 years of this kind of football if we do. However, if we can get healthy and add a couple of pieces, I think we can win NEXT year.

As for being "nascent," I've been watching this team for over 30 years. Maybe that's why I don't panic at every loss, or predict playoff runs at every win.

Again, just get your facts straight if you want to join the conversation.

Popps
10-27-2010, 12:58 PM
I think saying someone puts more effort into something more personal that they have more experience with vs something else doesn't make a conspiracy...

Of course, facts don't support that theory. In fact, they may refute it.

But, as you were.

Rohirrim
10-27-2010, 12:59 PM
If Josh is still here next year (and if there is a season) he should do what McCartney used to do when he coached the Buffs. He camed to Boulder and created the Nebraska/CU rivalry. Every year he would mark that day in red on the calendar and the Buffs knew that no matter what else happened during the season, on that day you were going to pour out your heart and soul on the field. You would win, or you would die trying.

Josh should mark three home games on the calendar: Raiders, KC and the Chargers. And he should tell the team, "These three games, we win. No matter what else happens. We win these three games." Hang that calendar in the lockerroom and let them see it every day. Three games.

bendog
10-27-2010, 01:00 PM
History revisionism is fun.

bull****. Den won 33 games in three years with Plummer as the fulltime starter. If he didn't choke in the AFC championship, Den's in the bowl against the seahags, and the refs called a miserable game giving pitt a win even though sea wasn't that good to begin with.

I disagree a little with Taco in that I think McDaniels is "growing" on the job, but he took a .500 team iwth the second rated offense in the league, and blew the entire thing up into a sovietstyle five year plan. Even assuming McDaniels can get it done, the fans may not have the patience. Anybody aspiring to be an NFL coach better know that the clock is ticking.

Popps
10-27-2010, 01:00 PM
Intentional... Coincidence... Who cares? All I know is that it's true.

Provide factional information, Taco.

Show us the factual information that proves he's not trying to prepare the team against division opponents, and is only saving his efforts for "east coast" teams.

You've already been proven incorrect using W/L records... or, factual information.

Once again, for this latest conspiracy theory, YOU will need to prove the sane people incorrect, not the other way around.

The earth is flat? Cool. Show us. PROVE it with facts.

TheReverend
10-27-2010, 01:02 PM
Of course, facts don't support that theory. In fact, they may refute it.

But, as you were.

Yeah, you're right.

http://coloradosportsdesk.com/wp/wp-content/josh-mcdaniels-fist-pump.jpg

baja
10-27-2010, 01:03 PM
I don't think so. I think Shanahan had to experience that low point in order to achieve the kind of focus that he needed to become a champion. He learned a lot using that focus combined with his initiation into the 49ers program.

I don't know if Shanahan could have turned around the Raiders at that point. Who can really say?

I think you are right but for a different reason. If ever a new coach lost his players it was Shanny in Oakland, well actually he never had them. He was in an bad situation there, he didn't get much support from Al and the FO as a result the players did not respect him or buy into his program. Shanny was destined to fail in Oakland because the players never bought into him.

Up to this point Josh does not that problem. He has wily old vets buying into his system. That's rare for a 34 year old first time head coach to earn this level of respect and that is why I am still in Josh's corner. If the players still believe in him who am I to make a call otherwise?

Popps
10-27-2010, 01:07 PM
Going .500 after our bye would go a long ways towards building confidence back up.

So, if a coach can't go .500 every year, he should be fired mid-season?

Good thing you're not the owner.

Saints were 7-9 in 07. Good thing they didn't fire their coach, huh?

baja
10-27-2010, 01:10 PM
That's not something you hear every day....

That's because the average black guy you see running is usually more motivated.

SonOfLe-loLang
10-27-2010, 01:11 PM
I think saying someone puts more effort into something more personal that they have more experience with vs something else doesn't make a conspiracy...

Why would him trying to be east coast teams be more personal? I can understand NE...but the Jets, Jags, Eagles, etc etc?

TheReverend
10-27-2010, 01:14 PM
Why would him trying to be east coast teams be more personal? I can understand NE...but the Jets, Jags, Eagles, etc etc?

I don't think or hope the Jags and Eagles were included in the thought, but the Jets absolutely. He has a deeper history with most of the players on that team and knows them better despite the coaching change than a, say, KC or Oakland for that matter.

bendog
10-27-2010, 01:14 PM
So, if a coach can't go .500 every year, he should be fired mid-season?

Good thing you're not the owner.

Saints were 7-9 in 07. Good thing they didn't fire their coach, huh?

mcDaniels gets den to a conf final, he gets a bye year.

baja
10-27-2010, 01:14 PM
You can tell who the recent Bronco fans are by how they feel on this.

I really doubt anybody who was a fan of this team in the lean, early years could discard the effort against the Raiders as 'just one game'.

They call it Raider Week for a reason. A reason built on decades of contempt.

There were times (a lot of them) when you got beat by a better Raider team back then. However, you gave as good as you got. You weren't pushed around. You weren't soft. You had pride. You didn't give up.

That is what made the 1977 AFCCG so special when they broke through.

Popps, the nascent fan, would like us to believe this game and failings this season are all due to injuries. That everything will be better when some players get healthy. That pat answer doesn't explain what I see happening on the field. It doesn't explain Quinn lining up wrong, hand picked players not knowing their assignments or basic things like when to be on the field. It doesn't explain curious play calling. The dumb penalities. It doesn't explain a lot of things.

Taken individually, these things are not Earth shattering. However, when you step back and look at them collectively, any sensible fan should be concerned about the direction this team is headed.

If what we had was a team that fought hard, limited the mental mistakes and still lost, then you could argue that it was just a bitter lose to a hated rival, that players returning from injuries would cure us. What I see is something deeper than that. More systemic. Much harder to fix.

Your's are well reasoned concerns worm. Is it your opinion McD should be sent packing now?

Popps
10-27-2010, 01:15 PM
I think you are right but for a different reason. If ever a new coach lost his players it was Shanny in Oakland, well actually he never had them.

Well, Taco never played football... and if he did, he'd probably know that a team doesn't necessarily need a coach to get "lost." Players can lose themselves, too. I remember being plenty prepared, and us just going out and stinking it up. Sometimes it happens.

Now, in the NFL the finger rightfully needs to point at the coach at a certain point. I'm just not sure one bad loss is a case for another entire organizational shift.

SonOfLe-loLang
10-27-2010, 01:17 PM
I don't think or hope the Jags and Eagles were included in the thought, but the Jets absolutely. He has a deeper history with most of the players on that team and knows them better despite the coaching change than a, say, KC or Oakland for that matter.

Theres really not enough evidence to support this. Just because we played decently against the Jets and NE, its not evidence of anything. Perhaps if we played each team 10 times and for some reason we kept playing well against those teams you'd have a point, but thats not the case. We beat up SD pretty bad last year in SD..same with KC, and Oakland. We lost to the Redskins, Jags, Pitt, Phil...I dunno, im not buying this at all, not even a little. Plus, McDaniels doesn't play the game, he coaches. His intensity only matters so much, but just judging from what i know about him, he seems like an intense guy who loves his job. I doubt he takes weeks off.

Taco John
10-27-2010, 01:18 PM
Why would him trying to be east coast teams be more personal? I can understand NE...but the Jets, Jags, Eagles, etc etc?

It's probably subjective, but the three games that I would say our team came out with the most intensity would be New England from last year (win), Philadelphia from last year (in a loss), and the NY Jets from this year (in a loss).

The three games where we came out with the least amount of intensity would be Oakland at home (59-14), KC at home (44-24), and SD at home (32-3).

Philadelphia had more to do with the stakes of that game than anything.

SonOfLe-loLang
10-27-2010, 01:19 PM
It's probably subjective, but the three games that I would say our team came out with the most intensity would be New England from last year (win), Philadelphia from last year (in a loss), and the NY Jets from this year (in a loss).

The three games where we came out with the least amount of intensity would be Oakland at home (59-14), KC at home (44-24), and SD at home (32-3).

Philadelphia had more to do with the stakes of that game than anything.

Youre right, measuring "intensity" is completely, 100 percent subjective.

Taco John
10-27-2010, 01:19 PM
Well, Taco never played football... .

I think it's funny that you chide people to get their facts straight, and then straight up lie.

Yeah, I played all through Jr. High and High School.

"Get your facts straight."

SonOfLe-loLang
10-27-2010, 01:21 PM
Ability to execute and "intensity" are too completely different things. Whatever, this entire argument is patently absurd.

Pendejo
10-27-2010, 01:21 PM
Course it doesn't count to you, it doesn't fit in with your agenda.

Color me shocked Taco...

The 6-0 start was great. However, it was clearly as flukey as the play that got it started. You can't simply brush aside the fact that after the torrid start they limped to a 2-8 finish to the season and have started this one 2-5. Explain it away using any combination of excuses and flawed reasoning that you like (injuries, new systems...etc), but it's still ugly. We're talking Anze Kopitar ugly here.

Two things have stood out to me so far this year...

1) Lack of discipline. Tons of terrible penalties, and multiple instances of having too few players on the field. Those sorts of things occurring repeatedly falls right at the feet of the coaching staff. The players often seem ill prepared.

2) Where is the improvement? The Donks haven't improved at all in the season and a half of games McDaniels has coached. Again...explain it anyway you please, but the team hasn't gotten any better. McDaniels was hired to turn the cosmetic yardage numbers into cold hard points. He's failed miserably to this point.

As for the players sticking up for McDaniels...that's great. I know that Bannan wasn't with the team last year, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if Haggan, or Bailey (or both) were that rat finks that squealed to Josh at the end of last season.

Taco John
10-27-2010, 01:21 PM
Youre right, measuring "intensity" is completely, 100 percent subjective.

Yep, so what we have is results.

Taco John
10-27-2010, 01:21 PM
Ability to execute and "intensity" are too completely different things. Whatever, this entire argument is patently absurd.

Not at all. It's absolutely valid.

We have played demonstrably harder against AFC East teams than we have at home against AFC West teams. This is indisputable fact. There is absolutely nothing that you can say to disprove this fact. Go ahead. Try.

SonOfLe-loLang
10-27-2010, 01:23 PM
Yep, so what we have is results.

Except your results are WRONG. Pitt (loss, didnt play well) Jags (loss), Jets (loss), Eagles (loss)

@ SD (win) @ KC (win) @ Oak (win)

Youre cherry picking an argument thats completely dumb to begin with. PLAYERS PLAY

TheReverend
10-27-2010, 01:23 PM
Theres really not enough evidence to support this. Just because we played decently against the Jets and NE, its not evidence of anything. Perhaps if we played each team 10 times and for some reason we kept playing well against those teams you'd have a point, but thats not the case. We beat up SD pretty bad last year in SD..same with KC, and Oakland. We lost to the Redskins, Jags, Pitt, Phil...I dunno, im not buying this at all, not even a little. Plus, McDaniels doesn't play the game, he coaches. His intensity only matters so much, but just judging from what i know about him, he seems like an intense guy who loves his job. I doubt he takes weeks off.

I fully agree. I will definitely say the game that he put the most of himself into was hands down New England. The team has never played any better under McD despite it being early on in offensive/defensive schemes, and the post game display certainly supports it.

Taco John
10-27-2010, 01:24 PM
Now, in the NFL the finger rightfully needs to point at the coach at a certain point. I'm just not sure one bad loss is a case for another entire organizational shift.


You continue to pretend that this is about one loss, and not about 13 of 17 losses.

SonOfLe-loLang
10-27-2010, 01:24 PM
Not at all. It's absolutely valid.

We have played demonstrably harder against AFC East teams than we have at home against AFC West teams. This is indisputable fact. There is absolutely nothing that you can say to disprove this fact. Go ahead. Try.

God you are frustrating! How is this indisputable!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Its incredibly disputable! There are gazillions of factors and variables in each football game. Are you honestly suggestiing he's not trying hard or that the players dont try hard? My god, players PLAY THE GAME

Ray Finkle
10-27-2010, 01:25 PM
I think it's funny that you chide people to get their facts straight, and then straight up lie.

Yeah, I played all through Jr. High and High School.

"Get your facts straight."

what he is saying is "you suited up" but never put the clipboard down :D

Just kidding, don't ban me!

SonOfLe-loLang
10-27-2010, 01:25 PM
I fully agree. I will definitely say the game that he put the most of himself into was hands down New England. The team has never played any better under McD despite it being early on in offensive/defensive schemes, and the post game display certainly supports it.

Well the post game display showed that it meant a lot to him, but why shouldnt it? He beat his mentor to go to 5-0. I'd be excited as hell too...but taco is suggesting that he doesnt prepare hard for every game and there's zero evidence of this. PLUS, the players play...mcD does not. Its just a really weird argument to make

24champ
10-27-2010, 01:26 PM
bull****. Den won 33 games in three years with Plummer as the fulltime starter.

Yup, we won a bunch of games back then with Jake. Yet this place was a war zone after those wins. Hmm, wonder why? It's certainly not because "winning was the agenda".

Taco John
10-27-2010, 01:27 PM
God you are frustrating! How is this indisputable!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Its incredibly disputable! There are gazillions of factors and variables in each football game. Are you honestly suggestiing he's not trying hard or that the players dont try hard? My god, players PLAY THE GAME


It's indisputable because it's a fact. I'm not saying he's not trying hard. I'm just saying that when it comes to playing our division rivals at home, our team doesn't come out with the same intensity that they come out with when it's time to play an AFC East opponent. I don't think it happens "on purpose," but I don't think "on purpose" matters as much as "that's what happened."

TheReverend
10-27-2010, 01:27 PM
Well the post game display showed that it meant a lot to him, but why shouldnt it? He beat his mentor to go to 5-0. I'd be excited as hell too...but taco is suggesting that he doesnt prepare hard for every game and there's zero evidence of this. PLUS, the players play...mcD does not. Its just a really weird argument to make

Not saying it's wrong. But I think it's clear he put his best effort and work into that week. Nothing wrong with it at all. I'd just like to see that effort, motivation and performance every week.

Or at least 2/3.

Or at least 1/3.

Popps
10-27-2010, 01:29 PM
I think it's funny that you chide people to get their facts straight, and then straight up lie.

Yeah, I played all through Jr. High and High School.

"Get your facts straight."


I stand corrected. I thought you said you hadn't.

By your posts, one would certainly think you hadn't.

Popps
10-27-2010, 01:30 PM
It's indisputable because it's a fact. I'm not saying he's not trying hard. I'm just saying that when it comes to playing our division rivals at home, our team doesn't come out with the same intensity "

Wait, "intensity" is a fact? Since when was a perceived emotion a "fact?"

Let's stick to the W/L records, which clearly disprove your latest conspiracy theory for the day.

SonOfLe-loLang
10-27-2010, 01:30 PM
It's indisputable because it's a fact. I'm not saying he's not trying hard. I'm just saying that when it comes to playing our division rivals at home, our team doesn't come out with the same intensity that they come out with when it's time to play an AFC East opponent. I don't think it happens "on purpose," but I don't think "on purpose" matters as much as "that's what happened."

how is it a fact? How do you measure "how hard the team is playing" What instrument are you using to come up with this indisputable fact? Is there some unit of measurement im missing? In fact the only empirical evidence you can possibly make (and its not even enough) is the final score. But that doesnt fit your argument. So, please tell me, how is this fact?

Rohirrim
10-27-2010, 01:31 PM
Which brings up a whole different discussion: What the hell was Josh doing Sunday? He just stood there with his playsheet. By himself. The whole game. Watching. Looking like a guy who had stepped in ****. Where was the coaching? The yelling? The calling of the team to the sidelines to give them hell? The lockerroom tirade? I didn't see ****.

SonOfLe-loLang
10-27-2010, 01:31 PM
Not saying it's wrong. But I think it's clear he put his best effort and work into that week. Nothing wrong with it at all. I'd just like to see that effort, motivation and performance every week.

Or at least 2/3.

Or at least 1/3.

I see your point, but i think its subjective because that was an emotional game. I think we've been very prepared in a lot of games, but our players havent always answered the call.

Taco John
10-27-2010, 01:31 PM
I stand corrected. I thought you said you hadn't.

By your posts, one would certainly think you hadn't.


Bah. You're a cheap shot who can only rely on low blows to maintain your part of the discussion. Your reputation for going for low blows like this doesn't bother me an ounce. You don't see me challenging your knowledge of the game simply because I disagree with you and I'm confident in my experience and knowledge of the game to hold my own.

You can continue to pretend that we haven't lost 13 of our last 17 games, and that my frustration over this fact is because I don't know anything about football. I don't expect I'm going to lose too much face over your lame attempts and low blows.

I'll continue to discuss football without needing to make it personal. You can take all the cheap shots you want.

TheReverend
10-27-2010, 01:35 PM
I see your point, but i think its subjective because that was an emotional game. I think we've been very prepared in a lot of games, but our players havent always answered the call.

So you think its purely coincidental that the team has a breakout performance 120% better than any other game we've seen by them and after the game the coach flips his **** fist pumping up and down the field despite not doing anything remotely like that in bigger wins like @ San Diego?

SonOfLe-loLang
10-27-2010, 01:37 PM
So you think its purely coincidental that the team has a breakout performance 120% better than any other game we've seen by them and after the game the coach flips his **** fist pumping up and down the field despite not doing anything remotely like that in bigger wins like @ San Diego?

Im saying its impossible to measure 120 percent better of anything. We beat the hell out of SD and Oak around the same time. We also won 3 other additional games in that 6 game stretch. Why do you think that effort was any better than the others. Its just perception that it was. To suggest he prepped more for that game than others is a HUGE leap. 1) because youre suggesting every other win (some blowouts) were not intense and 2) Players are the ones playing these games, not the coaches.

bendog
10-27-2010, 01:38 PM
Yup, we won a bunch of games back then with Jake. Yet this place was a war zone after those wins. Hmm, wonder why? It's certainly not because "winning was the agenda".

I guess, I'm lost with the thread, so I apologize. I thought the issue was TJ's "agenda." If so, that's always been upfront and clear. He wanted to build a internet site where fans of an incredibly successful football team could post. Post Elway, the team won a lot of games, and got close to the bowl in two of those years.

As for the whole thing about Den playing better against the EC than the division rivals ... I don't know. The whole thing is getting worse rather than better. I mean I really didn't give much chance to Den v. the Jests before or during the game. Den theoretically might have won, I suppose, but to me it was clear that the Jests were the much better team.

As for the personal dynamics of the board, that's always been odd. Earlier on it was some "newer" fans posting with some older people who were refugees from other boards, and people looking for internet validation. More recently it's wierd in that there are some posters who seek some kind of validation in 'being right' about McDaniels and/or firing Shanny ... and the whole Cutler v. Neckbeard thing ... which is crazy in it's won right. Maybe you referred to the board and not to TJ's "agenda." Like I said, I'm sorry if I misunderstood. But GD it, watching the broncos for the three Plummer years was fun. This is not fun. This is like the ****ing Saban years.

TheReverend
10-27-2010, 01:42 PM
Im saying its impossible to measure 120 percent better of anything. We beat the hell out of SD and Oak around the same time. We also won 3 other additional games in that 6 game stretch. Why do you think that effort was any better than the others. Its just perception that it was. To suggest he prepped more for that game than others is a HUGE leap. 1) because youre suggesting every other win (some blowouts) were not intense and 2) Players are the ones playing these games, not the coaches.

Okay, let's put it this way then.

Do you think if we played NE last Saturday we would've been mercy ruled by the 4th quarter?

Mile High Shack
10-27-2010, 01:45 PM
Which brings up a whole different discussion: What the hell was Josh doing Sunday? He just stood there with his playsheet. By himself. The whole game. Watching. Looking like a guy who had stepped in ****. Where was the coaching? The yelling? The calling of the team to the sidelines to give them hell? The lockerroom tirade? I didn't see ****.

Look at Tom Coughlin, not exactly a great coach, but when Eli started going bug**** nuts and throwing pics, he helped right the ship

What did McD do?

HAT
10-27-2010, 01:47 PM
I can't believe people are still clinging to the 13 of 17 thing. However, laugh, bitch, moan, rationalize and justify all you want about 2 of 7 because that's all that matters right now.

To use this example for the umpteenth time.......you wouldn't go around bragging about winning 16 of 16 if they came across two seasons where a team went 0-8, 8-0, 8-0, 0-8.

WTF cares about a group of wins & losses that spans an off-season? Last year was 8-8 which kind of sucks....This year (so far) is 2-5 which certainly sucks....But there is an awful lot of football left.

Popps
10-27-2010, 01:53 PM
Okay, let's put it this way then.

Do you think if we played NE last Saturday we would've been mercy ruled by the 4th quarter?

There's always more hype surrounding a coach playing his old team. Plus, the Patriots have been a winning team this season. Plus, they're the Patriots. I assume the attention on the game would have been much greater, in an overall sense.

Now, if the Raiders were in first place and had played well, I think it would have seen the same kind of attention.

Looked to me like a team that didn't expect the kind of fight they got into, and a team that was side-swiped by a few bad breaks early on, and never recovered.

The coach is as accountable as any single player, if not more. I'm just having a hard time believing this was done with intent, or some kind of lack of concern about the game.

Teams come out flat, sometimes. It happens. This was just an extreme example.

HAT
10-27-2010, 01:56 PM
Okay, let's put it this way then.

Do you think if we played NE last Saturday we would've been mercy ruled by the 4th quarter?

No...But who cares? It was a perfect storm of **** as many have said.

Raiders/Broncos could replay Sunday's game 100 times under the same conditions and not once would the result be anywhere close to what happened. Oakland would win some and Denver would win some. The overwhelming majority of those games would be played in the 20's and teens. A few times one or the other would score in the 30's or single digits. Similarly, the overwhelming MOV would be between 3-10. A few would be 10-20 and even fewer (perhaps 5) would be 21+
.

fontaine
10-27-2010, 01:57 PM
If Josh got replaced tomorrow it would set the team back at least 2 years compared to keeping him and having him get things moving forward. It would be fool hardy to not let him at a minimum finish the season

You should care if he is fired given that there is no way to know if he will pan out or not and the consequences if he is fired now.

Firing him now would be a huge premature ejaculation for the Denver Broncos.


Well, then lets see the team move forward then?

How about the run game?
How about the pass protection/OL blocking?
How about the run defense, special teams, penalty count, 3rd down conversions, turnover ratio, or even the passing game that's been getting worse since Baltimore? Points allowed/Point scored per game?

Have any of these things been moving forward?

If the team can somehow start reversing the trends then fine, okay that's something.

I'll give Josh the rest of the season to earn his job. If he can do these things and move the team forward in these key areas then he's at least stopped this backwards slide.

If not then I really don't see any reason to keep him - Do you?

All I see is a very good QBs/passing coach who knows his X's and O's when it comes to getting the most out of the passing game.

I certainly don't see a head coach who's managing his team and improving, even slightly, in the key areas where this team has been traditionally weak.

TheReverend
10-27-2010, 02:01 PM
There's always more hype surrounding a coach playing his old team. Plus, the Patriots have been a winning team this season. Plus, they're the Patriots. I assume the attention on the game would have been much greater, in an overall sense.

Now, if the Raiders were in first place and had played well, I think it would have seen the same kind of attention.

Looked to me like a team that didn't expect the kind of fight they got into, and a team that was side-swiped by a few bad breaks early on, and never recovered.

The coach is as accountable as any single player, if not more. I'm just having a hard time believing this was done with intent, or some kind of lack of concern about the game.

Teams come out flat, sometimes. It happens. This was just an extreme example.

In other words, a team that wasn't "prepared"?

Beantown Bronco
10-27-2010, 02:03 PM
McD tanked the game on purpose so the Pats first rounder that they got from Oakland in the Richard Seymour trade is lower, that's all.....

Br0nc0Buster
10-27-2010, 02:04 PM
In other words, a team that wasn't "prepared"?

"I've never been more prepared as a player from a head coach. And I've been through five or six already." - Mario Haggan

fontaine
10-27-2010, 02:05 PM
"Win you back over?"

Interesting. So, you're against us this weekend?
Ha!

This coming from a guy who's on record as saying "We weren't likely to make the playoffs this year to begin with."

Run along, fan police.

JPPT1974
10-27-2010, 02:05 PM
Well that is good that they respect him. But is it enough? Hopefully it is!

TheReverend
10-27-2010, 02:07 PM
"I've never been more prepared as a player from a head coach. And I've been through five or six already." - Mario Haggan

Lol, and he sure played like it.

Cute though, but I'm talking about what Popps saw: "Looked to me like a team that didn't expect the kind of fight they got into, and a team that was side-swiped by a few bad breaks early on, and never recovered. "

Taco John
10-27-2010, 02:07 PM
McD tanked the game on purpose so the Pats first rounder that they got from Oakland in the Richard Seymour trade is lower, that's all.....

Ha!

CONSPIRACY!

baja
10-27-2010, 02:09 PM
Which brings up a whole different discussion: What the hell was Josh doing Sunday? He just stood there with his playsheet. By himself. The whole game. Watching. Looking like a guy who had stepped in ****. Where was the coaching? The yelling? The calling of the team to the sidelines to give them hell? The lockerroom tirade? I didn't see ****.

I keep telling you they were shell shocked to a Shock & Awe magnitude.

It was like if you were hit by a car and every time you tried to get up and shake it out the driver puts the car in reverse and runs over you again. They just never recovered. After Bay Bay's fumble Josh should have called a time out and gathered the whole team around and told then to take some deep breaths and that there was a lot of football left to be played but he didn't.

Dagmar
10-27-2010, 02:11 PM
I think I have gotten over this game quicker than the one in 08, but that one was my first ever Broncos game live and the same sources had rumors come out about Cutlet being drunk in Denver the night before. Not that both games weren't horrible.

Br0nc0Buster
10-27-2010, 02:13 PM
Lol, and he sure played like it.

Cute though, but I'm talking about what Popps saw: "Looked to me like a team that didn't expect the kind of fight they got into, and a team that was side-swiped by a few bad breaks early on, and never recovered. "

Haggan isnt exactly Ray Lewis out there, the guy has some serious weaknesses

regardless Josh taking a week long brain fart on preparation doesnt seem to be the prevalent mindset from the players

TheReverend
10-27-2010, 02:18 PM
Haggan isnt exactly Ray Lewis out there, the guy has some serious weaknesses

regardless Josh taking a week long brain fart on preparation doesnt seem to be the prevalent mindset from the players

Professionals try to take responsibility.

Regardless, despite Josh saying Miller was unaccounted for in his presser, let's ignore that admission of guilt and just call it blown coverage by a player. Once or a couple times per game, that happens, players make mistakes.

...When it happens for 60 minutes, it's preparation.

baja
10-27-2010, 02:26 PM
Well, then lets see the team move forward then?

How about the run game?
How about the pass protection/OL blocking?
How about the run defense, special teams, penalty count, 3rd down conversions, turnover ratio, or even the passing game that's been getting worse since Baltimore? Points allowed/Point scored per game?

Have any of these things been moving forward?

If the team can somehow start reversing the trends then fine, okay that's something.

I'll give Josh the rest of the season to earn his job. If he can do these things and move the team forward in these key areas then he's at least stopped this backwards slide.

If not then I really don't see any reason to keep him - <b>Do you?</b>

All I see is a very good QBs/passing coach who knows his X's and O's when it comes to getting the most out of the passing game.

I certainly don't see a head coach who's managing his team and improving, even slightly, in the key areas where this team has been traditionally weak.

My position is same as you give it until the end of the season and reevaluate.

fontaine
10-27-2010, 02:29 PM
My position is same as you give it until the end of the season and reevaluate.

:afro:

HAT
10-27-2010, 02:35 PM
...When it happens for 60 minutes, it's preparation.

I disagree, as I do with the whole quit theory. The fluky start and quick 21 point lead had more to do with how the Raiders played subsequently than how the Broncos did.

Loose, downhill, no fear, take chances & call plays that they wouldn't have otherwise.


You think the Raptors were "unprepared" to defend Kobe when he dropped 81 on them? No, he simply started strong and once the numbers looked like they were going to be all time...His confidence grew & he had no fear whatsoever. Toronto never quit defending him, right up until the final buzzer.

fontaine
10-27-2010, 02:41 PM
I disagree, as I do with the whole quit theory. The fluky start and quick 21 point lead had more to do with how the Raiders played subsequently than how the Broncos did.

Loose, downhill, no fear, take chances & call plays that they wouldn't have otherwise.


You think the Raptors were "unprepared" to defend Kobe when he dropped 81 on them? No, he simply started strong and once the numbers looked like they were going to be all time...His confidence grew & he had no fear whatsoever. Toronto never quit defending him, right up until the final buzzer.

Interesting and I wont disagree completely.

But our biggest problem was we couldn't run the ball. Typically when teams jump out to an early lead and nothing's going right, you try and run the ball to slow things down, gain momentum and keep the other team's offense off the field.

But that only works if you can actually run the ball.