PDA

View Full Version : Integrity


Pseudofool
12-06-2010, 09:38 PM
I liked Josh because he had a teacher's ethic, at least in his outward, media presence; the way he talked about methodology and the expectations of players led me to believe the guy was going to do some really good things. Well, I was wrong (for now, but I think he's probably done after this).

The question is was I wrong because A) the notion bringing in high-spirited players and sending out egos was a faulty system or B) Josh knew how to spit some game, but never really had integrity in the first place.

Many will say the Cutler/Marshall trades demonstrate the silliness of point A, however we arguably replaced those two players with cheaper, even better alternatives Orton/Lloyd. What's worse is that we likely got good players with all four of our recent first round picks--some of this is yet to be seen, but I think there's evidence that Moreno, Ayers, Thomas, and Tebow are legitimate first round talent players. So what went wrong I wonder? Obviously, Spy Gate 2 legitimizes the point B--such that he knew what the ideal philosophy was to present to the media and, likely, the players and even the coaches, but privately was willing to do anything to win. Even cheat, and if not cheat, cover up cheating, if not, ignore cheating. Because if integrity is what the one preaches, then each and every action needs to show that. And even subtle advantages taken, like cutting in line for a soda at the cafeteria speak to players about the message v. the man. Evidently, the coaching staff turned against McD, in a way, the players did not--but these men, the coaches, were probably privy to much more than players were--it seems there was ruthlessness and a blamefulness that McD possessed in private that he never let his players, even his owner (the two hour change of mind, points to this), and the media never saw coming.

I must say, those that have been calling for McD's head from the beginning possessed no special insight, had no intelligence that led them to believe he would fail, these posters were haters--even if they happened to be right--because for the majority of them there arguments lacked specificity and referenced tired arguments--McD's failure and firing is a special sort that involves an unseen duplicity.

The point of the post is to consider what role does integrity and fostering players with goodwill have in the NFL. Is this a flawed strategy? Must the NFL be heartless and egotistic and Big Ben and Michael Vick and Randy Moss?

I wanted the dude to succeed because what he preached was already in my heart as a fan, and I think he might just have been a phony or someone who was too flexible with his beliefs in practice (when it suited him) and then inflexible when he spoke (or when it suited him again).

It's too bad, really. Why couldn't the guy just be who he said he was?

Chris
12-06-2010, 09:45 PM
Great post. I hadn't really thought about it this way. I don't think this result answers your question either way. It's obvious however that teams do thrive with players that have questionable integrity. In each case I think they're controlled by great organisations. Hypocrisy might be the biggest thing to avoid in today's NFL.

KipCorrington25
12-06-2010, 09:51 PM
We did have insight though, we saw he wanted to trade Cutler for Cassell and knew we were in trouble.

Pseudofool
12-06-2010, 10:10 PM
We did have insight though, we saw he wanted to trade Cutler for Cassell and knew we were in trouble.
Both Cutler and Cassell have better records the Broncos. However this "insight" doesn't speak to integrity. In fact, it sounds like "I-told-you-so" which is anti-integrity. I'm hoping to gain some real traction here on this issue, because I'm invested.

Chris
12-06-2010, 10:12 PM
Both Cutler and Cassell have better records the Broncos. However this "insight" doesn't speak to integrity. In fact, it sounds like "I-told-you-so" which is anti-integrity. I'm hoping to gain some real traction here on this issue, because I'm invested.

You're in the wrong place then. This is the bottom of the well.

Pseudofool
12-06-2010, 10:15 PM
You're in the wrong place then. This is the bottom of the well.Bottom or not, I'm a Bronco fan, but I am also who I am, and value what I value. I'm trying to sort through how we got to the bottom, rather than assume that any pop-a-mole hater had some sense. I think the firing of Josh McDaniel's is far more complicated and might give us more insight to the NFL game than at first blush.

baja
12-06-2010, 10:25 PM
I liked Josh because he had a teacher's ethic, at least in his outward, media presence; the way he talked about methodology and the expectations of players led me to believe the guy was going to do some really good things. Well, I was wrong (for now, but I think he's probably done after this).

The question is was I wrong because A) the notion bringing in high-spirited players and sending out egos was a faulty system or B) Josh knew how to spit some game, but never really had integrity in the first place.

Many will say the Cutler/Marshall trades demonstrate the silliness of point A, however we arguably replaced those two players with cheaper, even better alternatives Orton/Lloyd. What's worse is that we likely got good players with all four of our recent first round picks--some of this is yet to be seen, but I think there's evidence that Moreno, Ayers, Thomas, and Tebow are legitimate first round talent players. So what went wrong I wonder? Obviously, Spy Gate 2 legitimizes the point B--such that he knew what the ideal philosophy was to present to the media and, likely, the players and even the coaches, but privately was willing to do anything to win. Even cheat, and if not cheat, cover up cheating, if not, ignore cheating. Because if integrity is what the one preaches, then each and every action needs to show that. And even subtle advantages taken, like cutting in line for a soda at the cafeteria speak to players about the message v. the man. Evidently, the coaching staff turned against McD, in a way, the players did not--but these men, the coaches, were probably privy to much more than players were--it seems there was ruthlessness and a blamefulness that McD possessed in private that he never let his players, even his owner (the two hour change of mind, points to this), and the media never saw coming.

I must say, those that have been calling for McD's head from the beginning possessed no special insight, had no intelligence that led them to believe he would fail, these posters were haters--even if they happened to be right--because for the majority of them there arguments lacked specificity and referenced tired arguments--McD's failure and firing is a special sort that involves an unseen duplicity.

The point of the post is to consider what role does integrity and fostering players with goodwill have in the NFL. Is this a flawed strategy? Must the NFL be heartless and egotistic and Big Ben and Michael Vick and Randy Moss?

I wanted the dude to succeed because what he preached was already in my heart as a fan, and I think he might just have been a phony or someone who was too flexible with his beliefs in practice (when it suited him) and then inflexible when he spoke (or when it suited him again).

It's too bad, really. Why couldn't the guy just be who he said he was?

Good post. I concede this has to be considered a possibility. Fact is we will likely never know the truth of it. I like Josh for the same reasons you did. The move that makes no sense even if your speculations are true is firing him now.

baja
12-06-2010, 10:28 PM
I liked Josh because he had a teacher's ethic, at least in his outward, media presence; the way he talked about methodology and the expectations of players led me to believe the guy was going to do some really good things. Well, I was wrong (for now, but I think he's probably done after this).

The question is was I wrong because A) the notion bringing in high-spirited players and sending out egos was a faulty system or B) Josh knew how to spit some game, but never really had integrity in the first place.

Many will say the Cutler/Marshall trades demonstrate the silliness of point A, however we arguably replaced those two players with cheaper, even better alternatives Orton/Lloyd. What's worse is that we likely got good players with all four of our recent first round picks--some of this is yet to be seen, but I think there's evidence that Moreno, Ayers, Thomas, and Tebow are legitimate first round talent players. So what went wrong I wonder? Obviously, Spy Gate 2 legitimizes the point B--such that he knew what the ideal philosophy was to present to the media and, likely, the players and even the coaches, but privately was willing to do anything to win. Even cheat, and if not cheat, cover up cheating, if not, ignore cheating. Because if integrity is what the one preaches, then each and every action needs to show that. And even subtle advantages taken, like cutting in line for a soda at the cafeteria speak to players about the message v. the man. Evidently, the coaching staff turned against McD, in a way, the players did not--but these men, the coaches, were probably privy to much more than players were--it seems there was ruthlessness and a blamefulness that McD possessed in private that he never let his players, even his owner (the two hour change of mind, points to this), and the media never saw coming.

I must say, those that have been calling for McD's head from the beginning possessed no special insight, had no intelligence that led them to believe he would fail, these posters were haters--even if they happened to be right--because for the majority of them there arguments lacked specificity and referenced tired arguments--McD's failure and firing is a special sort that involves an unseen duplicity.

The point of the post is to consider what role does integrity and fostering players with goodwill have in the NFL. Is this a flawed strategy? Must the NFL be heartless and egotistic and Big Ben and Michael Vick and Randy Moss?

I wanted the dude to succeed because what he preached was already in my heart as a fan, and I think he might just have been a phony or someone who was too flexible with his beliefs in practice (when it suited him) and then inflexible when he spoke (or when it suited him again).

It's too bad, really. Why couldn't the guy just be who he said he was?

LOL if you are right this would make the highly ridiculed Blue right from the get go. ;D

footstepsfrom#27
12-07-2010, 02:09 AM
I must say, those that have been calling for McD's head from the beginning possessed no special insight, had no intelligence that led them to believe he would fail, these posters were haters--even if they happened to be right--because for the majority of them there arguments lacked specificity and referenced tired arguments--McD's failure and firing is a special sort that involves an unseen duplicity.
Unseen duplicity...what, exactly does that mean?

Blueflame
12-07-2010, 02:42 AM
LOL if you are right this would make the highly ridiculed Blue right from the get go. ;D

Fwiw, I would have much preferred being completely and totally wrong... and for the Broncos to now be in playoff contention at the top of our division. I hate every single Broncos loss. :(

Bronco Yoda
12-07-2010, 04:40 AM
I liked Josh because he had a teacher's ethic, at least in his outward, media presence; the way he talked about methodology and the expectations of players led me to believe the guy was going to do some really good things. Well, I was wrong (for now, but I think he's probably done after this).

The question is was I wrong because A) the notion bringing in high-spirited players and sending out egos was a faulty system or B) Josh knew how to spit some game, but never really had integrity in the first place.

Many will say the Cutler/Marshall trades demonstrate the silliness of point A, however we arguably replaced those two players with cheaper, even better alternatives Orton/Lloyd. What's worse is that we likely got good players with all four of our recent first round picks--some of this is yet to be seen, but I think there's evidence that Moreno, Ayers, Thomas, and Tebow are legitimate first round talent players. So what went wrong I wonder? Obviously, Spy Gate 2 legitimizes the point B--such that he knew what the ideal philosophy was to present to the media and, likely, the players and even the coaches, but privately was willing to do anything to win. Even cheat, and if not cheat, cover up cheating, if not, ignore cheating. Because if integrity is what the one preaches, then each and every action needs to show that. And even subtle advantages taken, like cutting in line for a soda at the cafeteria speak to players about the message v. the man. Evidently, the coaching staff turned against McD, in a way, the players did not--but these men, the coaches, were probably privy to much more than players were--it seems there was ruthlessness and a blamefulness that McD possessed in private that he never let his players, even his owner (the two hour change of mind, points to this), and the media never saw coming.

I must say, those that have been calling for McD's head from the beginning possessed no special insight, had no intelligence that led them to believe he would fail, these posters were haters--even if they happened to be right--because for the majority of them there arguments lacked specificity and referenced tired arguments--McD's failure and firing is a special sort that involves an unseen duplicity.

The point of the post is to consider what role does integrity and fostering players with goodwill have in the NFL. Is this a flawed strategy? Must the NFL be heartless and egotistic and Big Ben and Michael Vick and Randy Moss?

I wanted the dude to succeed because what he preached was already in my heart as a fan, and I think he might just have been a phony or someone who was too flexible with his beliefs in practice (when it suited him) and then inflexible when he spoke (or when it suited him again).

It's too bad, really. Why couldn't the guy just be who he said he was?

I don't think any of us know Josh enough to question the mans integrity. We don't know what was ticking inside him.

But we can see the results of his actions. IMO his actions from day one belied a young man that was not comfortable with being himself in his newfound responsibilities. His banty rooster posturing was obvious and off putting to say the least. His insecurities left him no experienced allies at the very coaching positions he needed the most. Instead of leaning on and learning from the more experience, he surrounded himself instead with yes men and then (according to accounts) threw them under the bus at the first sign of trouble.

The Spygate2 fiasco smells of misplaced loyalty and immaturaty to handle the consequences of his bad decision making at best. At worst... pure desperation.

He was clearly not ready for a leadership role such as a HQ. Not even close. Let alone with GM player personnel duties.

My question is: How could Bowlen have been so wrong about him? He's an experience business man and football owner.

Pseudofool
12-07-2010, 04:53 AM
Unseen duplicity...what, exactly does that mean?Two-facedness that we don't have access to? I mean we don't really know what happened in Spygate 2 and Josh's involvement--clearly his involvement undercut his proselytizing of integrity, in any case.

Kaylore
12-07-2010, 05:30 AM
Yeah, fair or not, the actions of your subordinates reflect on you as a leader.

Goobzilla
12-07-2010, 05:38 AM
Josh was the guy who preached on and on about character. So much so that he passed over Dez Bryant for a lesser player in Demariyus Thomas, then he goes and gets himself implicated in this videotape mess.

Pseudofool
12-07-2010, 05:42 AM
So much so that he passed over Dez Bryant for a lesser player in Demariyus Thomas.I'm not sure sure this part of your point is established at this point, both players have injury troubles, and both have shown a lot of potential. I do agree with the sentiment though.

tsiguy96
12-07-2010, 05:47 AM
Josh was the guy who preached on and on about character. So much so that he passed over Dez Bryant for a lesser player in Demariyus Thomas, then he goes and gets himself implicated in this videotape mess.

let history play itself out on that one.

Dos Rios
12-07-2010, 05:52 AM
Both Cutler and Cassell have better records the Broncos. However this "insight" doesn't speak to integrity. In fact, it sounds like "I-told-you-so" which is anti-integrity. I'm hoping to gain some real traction here on this issue, because I'm invested.

I don't think you're being fair here. Your overall point - that McDaniels was not the virtuous guy he preached - is right. But when his first move after being hired was to pull a stunt like trying to secretly trade for Cassel, it was exactly the kind of shady "Look at me, I'm smarter than everyone else" move that kept blowing up in his face over and over. Because Cutler is such an easy villian, his reaction ended up providing cover for McDaniels' bs, but there's no way McDaniels should have created that situation. Many thought at the time the incident only revealed Cutler's character. It actually shed a light on both guys.

Goobzilla
12-07-2010, 05:53 AM
I don't think you're being fair here. Your overall point - that McDaniels was not the virtuous guy he preached - is right. But when his first move after being hired was to pull a stunt like trying to secretly trade for Cassel, it was exactly the kind of shady "Look at me, I'm smarter than everyone else" move that kept blowing up in his face over and over. Because Cutler is such an easy villian, his reaction ended up providing cover for McDaniels' bs, but there's no way McDaniels should have created that situation. Many thought at the time the incident only revealed Cutler's character. It actually shed a light on both guys.

Rep that, you should post more! :strong:

Pseudofool
12-07-2010, 06:06 AM
I don't think you're being fair here. Your overall point - that McDaniels was not the virtuous guy he preached - is right. But when his first move after being hired was to pull a stunt like trying to secretly trade for Cassel, it was exactly the kind of shady "Look at me, I'm smarter than everyone else" move that kept blowing up in his face over and over. Because Cutler is such an easy villian, his reaction ended up providing cover for McDaniels' bs, but there's no way McDaniels should have created that situation. Many thought at the time the incident only revealed Cutler's character. It actually shed a light on both guys.I think we can read that scenario in a number of different ways. One version of the event suggests that McD actively pursued Cassell, another suggested that he answered phone calls, but was late to the table in terms of getting all the pieces moving.

Wanting to trade Cutler shouldn't be used to undercut McD's notion's of integrity if you ask me.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
12-07-2010, 06:10 AM
Fwiw, I would have much preferred being completely and totally wrong... and for the Broncos to now be in playoff contention at the top of our division. I hate every single Broncos loss. :(

Yeah, but not really though. You were rooting against Josh McDaniels -- and the Broncos -- since he walked in the door because you wanted him fired.

Kudos to you.

footstepsfrom#27
12-07-2010, 06:34 AM
I don't think you're being fair here. Your overall point - that McDaniels was not the virtuous guy he preached - is right. But when his first move after being hired was to pull a stunt like trying to secretly trade for Cassel, it was exactly the kind of shady "Look at me, I'm smarter than everyone else" move that kept blowing up in his face over and over. Because Cutler is such an easy villian, his reaction ended up providing cover for McDaniels' bs, but there's no way McDaniels should have created that situation. Many thought at the time the incident only revealed Cutler's character. It actually shed a light on both guys.
Post of the month...there is NO question that the earliest indicators we had of what Josh's character was about were only hints, mostly based on circumstancial evidence, but none-the-less well before the Cutler fiasco, was Pat Bowlen not bright enough to ask Josh a few things?...Something like this maybe:

"Young man you seem to have been quite successful in building an offensive juggernaut in New England, and since you were on the pulse of it as their offensive coordinator, why should I believe that you were outside the loop in terms of knowing about this video scullduggery?"

"And if I do take you at your word, then obviously it means you weren't as directly involved in the Patriot's offense as you suggest since this crucial activity was done without your knowledge or concent.

What gives here?"

What I'm saying is this; Bowlen hired this guy knowing there was at least one thing that could have raised a red flag, a big one...yet he hired him anyway. Then he let him hire a Patriots video guy...huh? WTF? ???

Bowlen is just as culpable as McDaniels if not more so in all this, and based on everything seen so far, his decision making process looks very shaky to me.

orinjkrush
12-07-2010, 06:36 AM
i've heard that integrity is merely the concordance of your words and your actions, with your actions speaking louder than your words. Josh's actions brought about these events, despite his lofty words. Unless you don't believe he was responsible.

Dos Rios
12-07-2010, 07:12 AM
I think we can read that scenario in a number of different ways. One version of the event suggests that McD actively pursued Cassell, another suggested that he answered phone calls, but was late to the table in terms of getting all the pieces moving.

Wanting to trade Cutler shouldn't be used to undercut McD's notion's of integrity if you ask me.

You're doing two things here that seemed reasonable at the time of the Cutler fiasco but became increasingly harder to do over time. First is accepting McDaniels' version of the truth. The "just took phone calls" explanation as I remember it was about the third or fourth line he used, after initially denying everything. What about Spygate II? Second is believing the situation was all about some flaws with the other guy. True of Nolan, Hillis and others?

Yes, Cutler probably was/is a douche. But the Goodmans? Lonnie Paxton? Odd and extreme decisions, knee jerk behavior, personality conflicts, and an unhealthy obsession with Patriot players happened almost Day 1.

Like you, I was willing to give McDaniels the benefit of the doubt on Cutler. But there's no doubt it left me with more questions about his character than I had the day he was hired. Some people got off the McDaniels train right then. Others with the Goodmans. Or Quinn/Alphonso. Or Hillis. Or season-ending collapse. Or Marshall. Or Nolan. Or Tebow. Or Maroney. Or stupid-ass hoodies. Or something else.

You are absolutely right that we should have all exited the McDaniels train at some point. My only point is I just don't see the point in now critizing people who exited earlier on based on a smaller sample size of the same evidence that eventually led everyone to the exits.

steeledude
12-07-2010, 07:46 AM
I must say, those that have been calling for McD's head from the beginning possessed no special insight, had no intelligence that led them to believe he would fail, these posters were haters--even if they happened to be right--because for the majority of them there arguments lacked specificity and referenced tired arguments--McD's failure and firing is a special sort that involves an unseen duplicity.


Your whole post is funny, but I like this the best. You're right, we possessed no special insight. Just common sense. Getting rid of young talent because you can't work with them or they "don't fit the system" is a sure sign of dark days ahead.

The fact so many people here somehow bought shipping talent OUT as a way to make a team better reminds me of how someone like George Bush got elected twice.