PDA

View Full Version : Grade the 2009 Broncos-Coaching



broncofaninfla
01-05-2010, 09:47 AM
I'll post a poll a day until every position has been covered. I'll start with coaching today, tommorow WR's, Wedesday TE's, Thursday O-Line, Friday RB's and so on.....

CoachChaz
01-05-2010, 09:50 AM
This thread is destined for disaster. Can't wait to see all the "F - fire McDaniels" comments

Dirk
01-05-2010, 09:53 AM
I chose B. After the offseason that the Broncos endured, it took a lot to get this team with all the new schemes, new players, new coaches and new philosophy to 8-8.

And I will disagree with anyone that says different. :D

I figured I would disagree up front so I didn't have to later. (even though I probably will anyway)

spikerman
01-05-2010, 09:54 AM
This is a tough one. The Broncos final record was much better than I thought it would be, but no team should blow making the playoffs after a 6-0 start and 3 game lead in the division. I guess we also have to consider the (IMO) poor draft and the apparent divisive locker room. I'm going to have to think about this one.

broncofaninfla
01-05-2010, 09:54 AM
This thread is destined for disaster. Can't wait to see all the "F - fire McDaniels" comments

They'll be a fair amount of Mcd lovers on here as well. With any poll or survey you have to cut through the fat. I'm hoping fans will respond with a overall assesment of the coaching accross the board, McD, Nolan etc....

CoachChaz
01-05-2010, 09:57 AM
I guess I dissect the 6-0 start more than others. It was more than a 6-0 start. it was getting a few breaks, catching teams on a bad week, playing more team oriented, etc.

If we played those same 6 teams at any other point in the season, the outcomes could be very different.

Nevertheless, i think all things considered, the staff did some good things while making some mistakes at the same time. The great thing about mistakes is they are the best way to learn. if the staff focuses on improving the successful areas and correcting the mistakes, then this team should continue to evolve into a dominant AFC force. I'll give the coaches a C+

claymore
01-05-2010, 10:18 AM
I said C for Coaching.

I give an D- for personell department.

dogfish
01-05-2010, 10:24 AM
where's the poll for grading the fans?

Grover
01-05-2010, 11:31 AM
I ranked the coaching staff "C" because they were basically average. Had we lost one more game than we did, they would have gotten a D. As it is, with our 8-8 record, it means we were an average team managed by average coaches.

I agree with McDaniels in that the coaches and team need to learn how to deal with and react positively to adversity. Two four-game losing streaks isn't what the Broncos should be about. That's Faider territory.

dunk7
01-05-2010, 11:37 AM
I'd prefer this poll be by coach: McDive = D- (for poor play calling and horrible personnel decisions), Nolan = B+ (would have been an A+ if not for the end of season collapse but I think he got this group to overacheive)

NightTrainLayne
01-05-2010, 11:45 AM
I gave a B. Maybe too high, I started to go with a C.

Here's the reason I moved it up. The first part of the season the coaching staff did a tremendous job scheming and getting players to the right spots to make the plays.

As the season wore on, a lot of that smoke and mirrors got exposed, and teams were more readily able to exploit out weaknesses. There's only so much a coach can do. Eventually somebody's got to make a block or a tackle or a play.

UnderArmour
01-05-2010, 11:54 AM
I chose F. After the bye week, we only won 2 games. Going from beating the likes of Cincinnati, New England, Dallas, and San Diego to getting beat by the Raiders and Chiefs is unacceptable and is the coaching staff's fault. The fact that we came close to beating Philly and Indy late season indicates that this team late season was playing to the level of their competition, which is a bad thing when your competition sucks.

There was not an improvement from last season, the offense regressed, and we became one of the few teams in NFL history to start 6-0 and miss the playoffs, it's pathetic.

CoachChaz
01-05-2010, 11:57 AM
I chose F. After the bye week, we only won 2 games. Going from beating the likes of Cincinnati, New England, Dallas, and San Diego to getting beat by the Raiders and Chiefs is unacceptable and is the coaching staff's fault. The fact that we came close to beating Philly and Indy late season indicates that this team late season was playing to the level of their competition, which is a bad thing when your competition sucks.

There was not an improvement from last season, the offense regressed, and we became one of the few teams in NFL history to start 6-0 and miss the playoffs, it's pathetic.

Something that cant be taken at face value. It's a lot deeper than this, but in all honesty, I'm tired of trying to explain. People that hate McD are always going to hate McD. I've accepted that

broncophan
01-05-2010, 12:05 PM
I chose c....
good job of having the team ready the first part of the season.
Nolan....it seems a few games did not have his defense prepared and by the time he made adjustments at half time....it was too late.
So it seems to me that we did get outcoached during the week throughout the last half of the season.

G_Money
01-05-2010, 01:03 PM
The job Mike Nolan did on defense in the first half of the year should not be under-rated. The guy throttled Cincy, choked out Dallas, punched NE in the face, handcuffed SD enough for us to win...and then the bye hit.

Teams started destroying us on the ground and we had no answer. Nolan had camoflauged his DL as well as he could through the first couple of months but it all came apart at the end of the year.

We've got to get the man a real defensive line.

I was disappointed in the offensive play-calling and execution, but I expected a 6-10 season so with a couple of lucky breaks we're about where we should have been record-wise. I always prefer to see improvement at the end of the year instead of regression, but without adequate players there's only so much scheme can cover.

I think Nolan did a better job of scheming to cover up talent gaps than McDaniels did, but the unforgivable rushing performances we gave up at the end of the year reduce Nolan's contributions as well. There's a thing called a run-blitz, Mike - if you cannot stop teams from destroying you on the ground at some point you might want to try it.

But still:

We were 7th in YPG allowed (partly because everyone ran on us instead of throwing by the end of the year), 20th in points, 13th in 3rd down percentage.

Last year we were 29th in YPG allowed, 30th in points, and 25th in 3rd down percentage.

Nolan fielded the 3rd best team against the pass (ypg) and 26th against the run. Last year we were 26th against the pass and 27th against the run.

Nolan took one aspect of our team from bottom 6 to top 3 in a season. The run D remained unchanged while using basically a bunch of rejects from Biggest Loser.

Yes, we invested in a lot of safeties and corners, both in the draft and in FA, but Nolan actually used that and turned it into the strength it should have been. He made teams beat us on the ground, instead of however they wanted. Having watched Slowik's D with Bailey and Bly back in pass coverage, it was nice to see a man take advantage of what he had to work with instead of castrating it.

Which makes me look forward to next year if he can get a NT to plug the middle and some better beef to assist.

There was some decent coaching this year. It wasn't on the offensive side so it doesn't show as much, and the last several games of watching our run D get carved up like a Christmas ham leaves a bitter taste for sure, but get the man some DL talent please, so that he can do for the Run D next year what he did for the pass D this year.

As for the offense:

Last year: 4.8 ypa on the ground, 1800+ yards.
This year: 4.2 ypa on the ground, 1800+ yards.

Last year: 7.3 ypa in the air, 4400+ yards.
This year: 6.9 ypa in the air, 3600+ yards.

What happened to my offensive genius? Throwing out Marshall and Scheffler should make this even more interesting. B for Nolan, D for McDaniels. Grade em out to a C.

Which means I'd actually rather give Nolan the talent this coming year than McDaniels. Give the offense an OL and the defense a DL. Let the skill positions on offense fend for themselves this coming year. McDaniels drafted a TE already, use him. He got McKinley and Gaffney, and blatantly misused Royal. Add them in to the gameplan. He still has Hillis, regardless of his hate for the FB, as well as Buckhalter and Moreno.

Line work only, please, and spend the money on D. Our offense may be boring but we could win games with it if we give Nolan more to work with and can successfully run up the middle occasionally on 3rd and short.

~G

UnderArmour
01-05-2010, 01:07 PM
Something that cant be taken at face value. It's a lot deeper than this, but in all honesty, I'm tired of trying to explain. People that hate McD are always going to hate McD. I've accepted that
The thread asks for an opinion, and I gave one. You cannot remove blame entirely from the coaching staff for what happened. I just don't see how you go from beating playoff teams in consecutive weeks and then get blown out by the Chiefs and lose to the Raiders at home.


I guess I dissect the 6-0 start more than others. It was more than a 6-0 start. it was getting a few breaks, catching teams on a bad week, playing more team oriented, etc.

If we played those same 6 teams at any other point in the season, the outcomes could be very different.

And yes, I am considering that the outcomes could have gone differently. See Philly. See Indianapolis. Both are examples of us facing playoff teams and the result going the different way, but we stayed competitive against them too and could have won both of those games. I don't fault McDaniels for losses to the competitive teams, everyone is bound to lose to at least two or three of those. That's why I gave them an F, the Broncos always played to the level of their competition, or the expected level of. Losing to the Raiders and Chiefs, inferior teams, at home with the playoffs on the line is very much deserving of an F.

It's why Shanahan got fired so I don't see what this has to do with liking McDaniels or not liking McDaniels. He's being judged on the same criteria, we melted down during the stretch and once again sucked in December. 2-8 is unacceptable.

red98
01-05-2010, 01:16 PM
We've got to get the man a real defensive line.

If only McKid could have seen that back in the offseason, of course having some extra picks would of helped too.../sarcasm

New coach, new system, same story

G_Money
01-05-2010, 01:42 PM
If only McKid could have seen that back in the offseason, of course having some extra picks would of helped too.../sarcasm

New coach, new system, same story

This is partly true, but had a lot of holes to patch. I don't necessarily agree with the holes we chose :tsk:, but this is a new year. As annoyed as I was by several aspects of our draft last year, there are players who should be available with our picks this year who can step in and make an impact.

We'll need to worry about replacing Doom as a pass-rushing LB if we don't throw money his way (and I don't expect to) but we could take his cash and add a decent DE to help bracket the NT I think we have to get through the draft. Move Fields back to being a backup where he belongs.

If Ayers can step up and do more at LB we might have a shot. But we've got to get DEs that can funnel the run back inside for the LBs to clear up and a NT that is trouble even for double-teams.

I'd rather take a NT in the draft (like the Ravens did with Ngata) and bookend him with experienced DEs who know their jobs while he learns. Unfortunately most DL take 2-3 years to really "get it" so I wish we'd taken some last year and they'd had a year to prep. Still, this really is a good year for DTs and DEs. This is a year we have to add some, either as understudies or stars out of the gate.

HAVE to.

No more combining picks or drafting 2nd-rate CBs in the first round. We need those picks, and we need to wade through some DL.

And Doom's cash should pay for a good DE - we tried the retread version last year and couldn't pull it off. We're gonna have to pony up.

~G

Northman
01-05-2010, 01:45 PM
Unfortuantely, it would of been nice if you had broken it down to at least offense and defense. Never the less, the total group gets a C from me. It essentially is the tale of two seasons. Before the bye and after. Probably is more of a C+ or B- but with the options i went with C.

red98
01-05-2010, 01:58 PM
This is partly true, but had a lot of holes to patch. I don't necessarily agree with the holes we chose :tsk:, but this is a new year. As annoyed as I was by several aspects of our draft last year, there are players who should be available with our picks this year who can step in and make an impact.

We'll need to worry about replacing Doom as a pass-rushing LB if we don't throw money his way (and I don't expect to) but we could take his cash and add a decent DE to help bracket the NT I think we have to get through the draft. Move Fields back to being a backup where he belongs.

If Ayers can step up and do more at LB we might have a shot. But we've got to get DEs that can funnel the run back inside for the LBs to clear up and a NT that is trouble even for double-teams.

I'd rather take a NT in the draft (like the Ravens did with Ngata) and bookend him with experienced DEs who know their jobs while he learns. Unfortunately most DL take 2-3 years to really "get it" so I wish we'd taken some last year and they'd had a year to prep. Still, this really is a good year for DTs and DEs. This is a year we have to add some, either as understudies or stars out of the gate.

HAVE to.

No more combining picks or drafting 2nd-rate CBs in the first round. We need those picks, and we need to wade through some DL.

And Doom's cash should pay for a good DE - we tried the retread version last year and couldn't pull it off. We're gonna have to pony up.

~G

I agree with all of this except I think Doom stays.

claymore
01-05-2010, 02:11 PM
I agree with all of this except I think Doom stays.

I dont know why I have such a hard time paying Doom. All he does is produce.

red98
01-05-2010, 02:28 PM
I dont know why I have such a hard time paying Doom. All he does is produce.

McKid seems to like him, we'll see.

G_Money
01-05-2010, 02:42 PM
Demarcus Ware signed a 7 year, 80 million dollar contract in October with something like 40 million guaranteed. He was the premier sack specialist available.

Now Elvis can make the case that he is, especially since he led the league in sacks.

Ware vs Doom in sacks, first four years:
8 vs 9
12 vs 12
12 vs 5
20 vs 17

If Elvis wants what Ware got, he HAS to go. We can't pay that.

Tackles, Ware vs Doom:
58 vs 18
73 vs 39
84 vs 24
84 vs 47

Doom as a 3-4 OLB is able to stay on the field more but he still only makes half the tackles that Ware does, so he shouldn't get Ware's contract. But OLB maximizes his value, while he would get less as a third-down sack specialist DE.

So we're gonna pay a premium, especially with so many teams now running a 3-4 that could make use of his skills. If you can get him for 5/40, with 20 mil guaranteed, do you do that? Or is that still too big a hit? Because I can definitely see someone picking him up at that price, and it may be more. Goodman cost us 5/25 with 10 mil in guarantees, and that looks to be a reasonable deal. But sacks are a sexy number around the league and I don't think Doom comes back at that price.

So what price is reasonable, and what price means you let him walk and rely on your first round draftpick?

Considering the high estimation McDaniels seems to have for his ability to spot talent and the low regard he shows for talent given to him, I think the scales tip in favor of Ayers being our 2010 starter - especially since he's guaranteed as much as Goodman (5 years, $15.5 mil, 9.7 guaranteed) to be the backup.

~G

BroncoNut
01-05-2010, 02:50 PM
I chose B. After the offseason that the Broncos endured, it took a lot to get this team with all the new schemes, new players, new coaches and new philosophy to 8-8.

And I will disagree with anyone that says different. :D

I figured I would disagree up front so I didn't have to later. (even though I probably will anyway)

I am like minded althogh these last few weeks have been tough to watch, can't ignore the start of the season and some of the geames we wond, esp NE and Dallas. I would ahve given a B-/C+

missingnumber7
01-05-2010, 03:51 PM
I give a C. I give a curve grade though because of regime change. I will have a lot higher expectations for execution next year. And play calling must improve. And it should with more of a playbook installed.

Defense will improve for 2 reasons...1 second year in a 3-4 and 2 Nolan will stay. More players buy into the system. Keep the vets around. Team has potential.

claymore
01-05-2010, 03:55 PM
I give a C. I give a curve grade though because of regime change. I will have a lot higher expectations for execution next year. And play calling must improve. And it should with more of a playbook installed.

Defense will improve for 2 reasons...1 second year in a 3-4 and 2 Nolan will stay. More players buy into the system. Keep the vets around. Team has potential.

There should be zero distractions this year. If there are thats 100% on McDaniels. IMO...... Unless a player goes crazy off the field.....

CoachChaz
01-05-2010, 04:35 PM
The difference between Doom and Ware is Ware can do more than rush the passer.

HORSEPOWER 56
01-05-2010, 04:35 PM
C-. To even consider an A, you need to at least make the playoffs. The defense was a solid B this year. The offense was a D to a D-. The defense won six straight with minimal help from the offense (they did just enough not to lose games that the defense gift wrapped), then they just faded down the stretch and got worse as the offense got worse.

STs were a straight C if you even out the good kicking of Prater with the bad punting of whoever we had at the time, combined with our KR/PR #s being about even when kicking it away and receiving it, the STs were a wash.

Could've been much worse, but it can be so much better in the future.

dogfish
01-05-2010, 05:11 PM
I'd rather take a NT in the draft (like the Ravens did with Ngata) and bookend him with experienced DEs who know their jobs while he learns. Unfortunately most DL take 2-3 years to really "get it" so I wish we'd taken some last year and they'd had a year to prep.
~G

i hate to sound like a broken record, but i still think chris baker has a chance to be that guy, especially with fields locked up to a reasonable contract as a more-than-competent rotational NT. . .

Ravage!!!
01-05-2010, 06:54 PM
I clicked on C, then changed it to a D,.. purely on the fact that I believe we lose some serious talent this offseason with Marshall, Scheffler and Hillis. I know Marshall is a 'maybe' but I just can't see things being repaired. That kind of loss makes me question the coaches ability to manage players...despite them being drafted by another coach.