PDA

View Full Version : What does Nolan mean by this?



Dean
05-28-2010, 07:17 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=capress-fbn_dolphins_nolan-3493133





Nolan getting settled with Dolphins
Tim Reynolds, The Associated Press
2 hours, 31 minutes ago

Email Print DAVIE, Fla. - Mike Nolan apparently is no fan of defense. Which is surprising, given the career path he's chosen.

He's the Miami Dolphins' defensive co-ordinator, remember. So when explaining his core philosophy on Friday, after the Dolphins completed the first practice of a three-day minicamp, Nolan broke out a term that a lot of coaches in his position probably wouldn't use too often.

"You work towards being offensive," Nolan said. "You don't want to be defensive."

ADVERTISEMENT

To him, it makes sense. The Dolphins' hierarchy obviously believes in Nolan's thinking as well, proven by how swiftly they moved to close a deal with him January. Nolan's hiring was announced by Miami — which also courted Al Groh and Keith Butler for the job — less than 24 hours after news broke of his departure from the Denver Broncos.

So between now and September's start of the season, Nolan's in a dual role. He'll teach that offensive — in other words, aggressive — style of defense to the Dolphins, while continuing to get caught up on learning about players he inherited from the 2009 team and ones added since.

"I always had a great deal of respect for his defense and more importantly, his defensive philosophy," Dolphins coach Tony Sparano said. "I always felt like those guys did a great job of changing the math on defense. When you felt like you had enough people to block them, there was always somebody else there."

And as far as that "offensive" way of thinking about defense, Sparano totally understands.

"What he's talking about there, people always think the offense is the team that pushes the tempo," Sparano said. "They take it to you. To be offensive, you've got to be high-flying. You've got to be pushing the ball … and when Mike talks about being offensive, he talks about setting the pace and maybe dictating to the offense a little bit more as opposed to the other way around."

Sparano and Nolan met just a few years ago, talking football at a combine. Unbeknownst to Sparano at the time, he was on Nolan's list of possible candidates for a co-ordinator's job in San Francisco. The two stayed in touch, even after Nolan got fired by the 49ers as their head coach in 2008.

Oddly, they're together now as coach and co-ordinator, just now with Sparano sitting at the head of the table and Nolan serving as a lieutenant.

"He's got a real good reputation," Dolphins second-year cornerback Sean Smith(notes) said. "Everyone knows that."

That he does, bolstered by more than two decades — or really, his entire life — around the NFL.

Nolan's father, Dick Nolan, was a longtime NFL coach after his playing days ended, and took his kid to plenty of practices when he was growing up, the significance of which was lost on the boy at the time.

Naturally, it planted some seeds for which roads the kid would travel.

After four college stops as an assistant, Nolan's time coaching in the NFL started with the Broncos in 1987. As a 35-year-old in 1993, he became the youngest defensive co-ordinator in the league when the Giants hired him. From there, he went to Washington, back to New York with the Jets, then four years with the Ravens (including one season coaching wide receivers) before the 49ers gave him the head coaching opportunity in 2005.

That stint, Nolan said, has made him a better co-ordinator.

Through being a head coach, Nolan has an "appreciation of what the other guy has to do," he said. "Respect for that job."

He spent last season in Denver, helping the Broncos to a quick 6-0 start, only to see the team fade down the stretch and miss the playoffs. The Dolphins defense — long the stronger side of the franchise — took some steps back in 2009 as well, and Bill Parcells decided to bring Nolan back to his side. Nolan worked for the Jets when Parcells ran the operation there.

"I've known the people here and I've respected the people here, whether it was (general manager Jeff Ireland), Bill, Tony, all three of those guys," Nolan said. "I've probably known Bill the best when he was the GM of the Jets, but the other two guys, I knew as acquaintances and respected them."

And the decision to come to Miami, Nolan said, was an easy one.

"I didn't have a job," Nolan said. "I needed a job, so there wasn't too much thinking."


Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy - About Our Ads - Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Help - Site Map

Copyright © 2010 The Canadian Press. All Rights Reserved.

HE DIDN'T HAVE A JOB????

honz
05-28-2010, 07:58 PM
That he didn't have a job for a short time after he and Denver parted ways?

dogfish
05-28-2010, 07:58 PM
no good can come of this thread, coach. . . . :lol:

HORSEPOWER 56
05-28-2010, 09:08 PM
no good can come of this thread, coach. . . . :lol:

True that, especially if the defense falters this year...

silkamilkamonico
05-28-2010, 09:14 PM
Who cares. Mike Nolan is so 3 months ago.

BigBroncLove
05-28-2010, 09:39 PM
no good can come of this thread, coach. . . . :lol:

Well I don't know what your taking about ;)

what honz said. He, for a small span, didn't have a job.

I'll miss Nolan being a part of this defense, but hopefully not to much. Honestly, at the upgrade at the front 3 made this year in FA, and I know not everyone agrees with me but I think this years defense can only be better. Let's all just hope that smith turns out to be that nickle CB we need, or someone else does, and this team can stay healthy. If it can, I can actually say depending on whos behind the center, say I feel this could be a step up this year.

Tned
05-28-2010, 09:52 PM
Well I don't know what your taking about ;)

what honz said. He, for a small span, didn't have a job.



The only problem with that is that a few weeks ago so many people were claiming Miami was guilty of tampering, that Nolan forced his way out of town after getting a deal lined up with Miami. So, it is very possible that Nolan is lying, but I highly doubt that the being out of a job he was talking about was the 24 hours between the mutual parting and being hired by Miami.

Again, just a few weeks ago so many were claiming it was impossible that he could have interviewed, worked out a contract and signed in that tiny 24 hour period.

Anyway, in the greater scheme of things it doesn't really matter, but it's a great example about how making assumptions based on NO facts can prove to be very poor assumptions.

honz
05-28-2010, 10:20 PM
The only problem with that is that a few weeks ago so many people were claiming Miami was guilty of tampering, that Nolan forced his way out of town after getting a deal lined up with Miami. So, it is very possible that Nolan is lying, but I highly doubt that the being out of a job he was talking about was the 24 hours between the mutual parting and being hired by Miami.

Again, just a few weeks ago so many were claiming it was impossible that he could have interviewed, worked out a contract and signed in that tiny 24 hour period.

Anyway, in the greater scheme of things it doesn't really matter, but it's a great example about how making assumptions based on NO facts can prove to be very poor assumptions.
So maybe him and the Broncos parted ways a bit before word got out?

jhildebrand
05-28-2010, 10:49 PM
So maybe him and the Broncos parted ways a bit before word got out?

Why would Nolan allow any such situation like that to exist? How could he possibly benefit from that?

honz
05-28-2010, 11:05 PM
Why would Nolan allow any such situation like that to exist? How could he possibly benefit from that?
It would neither hurt nor benefit him...I'm talking about a couple of days here.
Look, it is clear that McD and Nolan had some sort of philosophical differences and agreed to part ways on fairly good terms. When this parting happened shouldn't really matter.

Tned
05-28-2010, 11:07 PM
It would neither hurt nor benefit him...I'm talking about a couple of days here.
Look, it is clear that McD and Nolan had some sort of philosophical differences and agreed to part ways on fairly good terms. When this parting happened shouldn't really matter.

Yes, but there were a lot of people that were claiming that they only parted ways because Nolan wanted out to go to Miami.

jhildebrand
05-28-2010, 11:20 PM
It would neither hurt nor benefit him...I'm talking about a couple of days here.
Look, it is clear that McD and Nolan had some sort of philosophical differences and agreed to part ways on fairly good terms. When this parting happened shouldn't really matter.

My bad. I guess I took it to mean a lengthy amount of time like a month. I could see a couple of days with your scenario.

jhildebrand
05-28-2010, 11:22 PM
Yes, but there were a lot of people that were claiming that they only parted ways because Nolan wanted out to go to Miami.

Which simply doesn't make sense anyway seeing how McD and the Broncos had Nolan under contract.

The bottom line here is Nolan could be here but he isn't because somebody with enough pull wanted him gone.

The problems will come if the D doesn't perform at a level that last year's D did statistically speaking.

Tned
05-28-2010, 11:56 PM
Which simply doesn't make sense anyway seeing how McD and the Broncos had Nolan under contract.

The bottom line here is Nolan could be here but he isn't because somebody with enough pull wanted him gone.

The problems will come if the D doesn't perform at a level that last year's D did statistically speaking.

I don't have a problem with getting rid of Nolan. If McD thought the defense without him, than the move should have been made. McDaniels has to have confidence in his DC.

My issue is with the constant demonization of every ex-player and coach, and fictional scenarios people make up to demonize those players and coaches, like the Miami tampering and that McDaniels is just such a good and honorable man that he let Nolan out of his contract after Nolan and Miami broke league rules by having these fan-alleged contract talks.

jhildebrand
05-29-2010, 12:57 AM
I don't have a problem with getting rid of Nolan. If McD thought the defense without him, than the move should have been made. McDaniels has to have confidence in his DC.

My issue is with the constant demonization of every ex-player and coach, and fictional scenarios people make up to demonize those players and coaches, like the Miami tampering and that McDaniels is just such a good and honorable man that he let Nolan out of his contract after Nolan and Miami broke league rules by having these fan-alleged contract talks.

Like how McDaniels got Bobby Turner a raise :rolleyes:

Bosco
05-29-2010, 01:05 AM
My issue is with the constant demonization of every ex-player and coach, and fictional scenarios people make up to demonize those players and coaches, like the Miami tampering and that McDaniels is just such a good and honorable man that he let Nolan out of his contract after Nolan and Miami broke league rules by having these fan-alleged contract talks.

You mean these fictional scenarios as reported by guys like Schefter and King?

Right.


Like how McDaniels got Bobby Turner a raise :rolleyes: He did, although indirectly, when he denied Shanahan the chance to interview him. Once that happened, the only way for Mike to get him was to offer him a promotion to Assistant Head Coach, which obviously comes with a higher price tag than a positional coach.

elsid13
05-29-2010, 06:24 AM
You mean these fictional scenarios as reported by guys like Schefter and King?

Right.

He did, although indirectly, when he denied Shanahan the chance to interview him. Once that happened, the only way for Mike to get him was to offer him a promotion to Assistant Head Coach, which obviously comes with a higher price tag than a positional coach.

Salaries are independent of titles. Turner got a better title to do the same thing, the money was going to be there.

jhildebrand
05-29-2010, 10:53 AM
Salaries are independent of titles. Turner got a better title to do the same thing, the money was going to be there.

Agreed. Josh didn't get Turner Jack except a headache. If McDaniels wanted him he could have offered him the same promotion Washington did long before they came calling and everybody knew they would be calling.

honz
05-29-2010, 10:58 AM
Yes, but there were a lot of people that were claiming that they only parted ways because Nolan wanted out to go to Miami.
Whether he had a deal with the Dolphins under the table is irrelevant. The Broncos and Nolan mutually parted ways.

atwater27
05-29-2010, 11:15 AM
Mike Nolan was the reason Denver's defense improved last season, not McDaniels.
But, he did something to piss of the 20 something year old napoleon, which, as we have seen many times already, could be something like tying his shoes without permission. So now we have a ******* nobody coaching our D. Great moves make great teams!

TXBRONC
05-29-2010, 11:15 AM
It would neither hurt nor benefit him...I'm talking about a couple of days here.
Look, it is clear that McD and Nolan had some sort of philosophical differences and agreed to part ways on fairly good terms. When this parting happened shouldn't really matter.

If there had been some major breaking of the rules like tampering I seriously doubt that McDaniels and Nolan would have parted company on good terms nor do I see McDaniels just letting it slide.

TXBRONC
05-29-2010, 11:36 AM
Again, just a few weeks ago so many were claiming it was impossible that he could have interviewed, worked out a contract and signed in that tiny 24 hour period.

It's not impossible. He's a free agrent with a terrific resume and Miami had a coaching need to fill why would they want to risks losing a quality coach to some other team?

GGMoogly
05-29-2010, 11:53 AM
When I was younger and only a little cynical, I thought there were only three people you couldn't trust: lawyers, cops and junkies. But as I grow older I now believe coaches (football, hockey, etc.) belong at the top of the list.:coffee:

jhildebrand
05-29-2010, 11:56 AM
If there had been some major breaking of the rules like tampering I seriously doubt that McDaniels and Nolan would have parted company on good terms nor do I see McDaniels just letting it slide.

Especially seeing how the Broncos considered pursuing tampering charges against the Jets for much lighter transgressions by the Jets with Marshall.

jhildebrand
05-29-2010, 11:57 AM
Whether he had a deal with the Dolphins under the table is irrelevant. The Broncos and Nolan mutually parted ways.

That's what McDaniels said and the FO billed to the media. Nolan wasn't allowed to comment. :coffee:

TXBRONC
05-29-2010, 12:00 PM
Especially seeing how the Broncos considered pursuing tampering charges against the Jets for much lighter transgressions by the Jets with Marshall.

No kidding. He wanted to be rid of Marshall he could hardly stand it yet he considered pursuing tampering charges against the Jets?

Buff
05-29-2010, 12:07 PM
This thread/debate is pointless. There is no new information here - he just said he needed a job, which he did. Maybe McD told Nolan he wouldn't be returning weeks prior and they just delayed the announcement, either way, who cares?

TXBRONC
05-29-2010, 12:15 PM
This thread/debate is pointless. There is no new information here - he just said he needed a job, which he did. Maybe McD told Nolan he wouldn't be returning weeks prior and they just delayed the announcement, either way, who cares?

You're he fired him weeks ahead time? Buff that doesn't seem to add up.

Buff
05-29-2010, 12:53 PM
You're he fired him weeks ahead time? Buff that doesn't seem to add up.

No, I'm saying this article doesn't really provide any new information. We pretty much know that Nolan was shown the door for one reason or another, otherwise he'd still be fulfilling his contractual obligations and working here.

So, I don't see what difference it makes if they agreed to part ways 3 weeks before he caught on with the Dolphins, or 3 hours beforehand. It seems pretty clear that he wouldn't have been searching for a job had it not been for some clear understanding he and McD had already come to.

honz
05-29-2010, 12:59 PM
That's what McDaniels said and the FO billed to the media. Nolan wasn't allowed to comment. :coffee:
Okay. I guess Nolan is still under the McDaniels trance where he's not allowed to say anything bad about him.

honz
05-29-2010, 01:00 PM
No, I'm saying this article doesn't really provide any new information. We pretty much know that Nolan was shown the door for one reason or another, otherwise he'd still be fulfilling his contractual obligations and working here.

So, I don't see what difference it makes if they agreed to part ways 3 weeks before he caught on with the Dolphins, or 3 hours beforehand. It seems pretty clear that he wouldn't have been searching for a job had it not been for some clear understanding he and McD had already come to.

Basivally waht I am trying to say onlt Buffalo is much more smart then me.

TXBRONC
05-29-2010, 01:10 PM
No, I'm saying this article doesn't really provide any new information. We pretty much know that Nolan was shown the door for one reason or another, otherwise he'd still be fulfilling his contractual obligations and working here.

So, I don't see what difference it makes if they agreed to part ways 3 weeks before he caught on with the Dolphins, or 3 hours beforehand. It seems pretty clear that he wouldn't have been searching for a job had it not been for some clear understanding he and McD had already come to.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Bosco
05-29-2010, 02:06 PM
Salaries are independent of titles.

You can't possibly believe that.


Agreed. Josh didn't get Turner Jack except a headache. If McDaniels wanted him he could have offered him the same promotion Washington did long before they came calling and everybody knew they would be calling.

I highly doubt that Josh wanted the cluster**** of a coaching staff that Shanahan is known for. Not to mention that Josh could then go get someone who would be a better fit for his power running scheme.


Mike Nolan was the reason Denver's defense improved last season, not McDaniels. That's funny. I'm pretty sure Josh decided what scheme they were going to run (not Nolan's), hired all of Nolan's assistants and picked all of the defensive players.

Yeah, that get doesn't get the bulk of the credit, much less any of it. :tsk:


If there had been some major breaking of the rules like tampering I seriously doubt that McDaniels and Nolan would have parted company on good terms nor do I see McDaniels just letting it slide. Just like Schefter said, the Broncos didn't pursue the tampering charges because they were happy to get rid of Nolan. Had it been someone they wanted to keep, you can bet they would have pursued it.

Tned
05-29-2010, 02:09 PM
No, I'm saying this article doesn't really provide any new information. We pretty much know that Nolan was shown the door for one reason or another, otherwise he'd still be fulfilling his contractual obligations and working here.

So, I don't see what difference it makes if they agreed to part ways 3 weeks before he caught on with the Dolphins, or 3 hours beforehand. It seems pretty clear that he wouldn't have been searching for a job had it not been for some clear understanding he and McD had already come to.

The only thing it is, is a counter argument for the crowd that wants to demonize every ex-Broncos player or coach.

In the case of Nolan, they concocted this story about how Nolan and Miami worked out a deal behind McDaniels back, then when McDaniels found out, he asked Nolan if he wanted to go coach in Miami. When Nolan said yes, McDaniels, being the nice guy he is, released him from his contract.

The one sentence in this article certainly doesn't clear up much, but it does run contrary to the "from thin air" version of events that many on here have been touting.

dogfish
05-29-2010, 02:32 PM
Mike Nolan was the reason Denver's defense improved last season, not McDaniels.
But, he did something to piss of the 20 something year old napoleon, which, as we have seen many times already, could be something like tying his shoes without permission. So now we have a ******* nobody coaching our D. Great moves make great teams!

martindale's not a nobody-- he's a good position coach getting his shot to move up. . . every good DC was a rookie at one point. . .

not being a proven commodity is far from the same thing as being a bum. . . .

Dean
05-29-2010, 02:37 PM
Amen T-ned. I posted this with the only intent being making a cetain group of posters aware that McD is wholely responsible for the players, coaching staff, and nearly all things Bronco. It is his right but with choice comes responsibility. Whether this year's outcome is praise or shame, it is his baby. No one else.

He has been given free rein to build the team as he saw fit. In my eyes, this year he is no longer a rookie head coach and he has the team he built. He must either sink or swim. if the team shows significant improvement then I will believe he is on the right track that would say a lot about his ability to be a head coach. If not, then that also speaks loud and clear.

broncofaninfla
05-29-2010, 02:43 PM
Losing Nolan was huge. Miami got one hell of a DC. I hope Wink is as good as I think.

Broncolingus
05-29-2010, 02:57 PM
Amen T-ned. I posted this with the only intent being making a cetain group of posters aware that McD is wholely responsible for the players, coaching staff, and nearly all things Bronco. It is his right but with choice comes responsibility. Whether this year's outcome is praise or shame, it is his baby. No one else.

He has been given free rein to build the team as he saw fit. In my eyes, this year he is no longer a rookie head coach and he has the team he built. He must either sink or swim. if the team shows significant improvement then I will believe he is on the right track that would say a lot about his ability to be a head coach. If not, then that also speaks loud and clear.

GP, Dean...

I too continue to not understand why so many can't (or won't) understand that the coach (yes I know about the owners) is the one in charge and responsible.

If he/she makes good decisions, the team will succeed and win and we as fans will be supportive and happy.

If he/she makes bad decisions, the team will fail and lose and we as fans will be unhappy and want to someone else who can win.

This is such a basic concept and applies to any sport and really any organization as a axiom.

TXBRONC
05-29-2010, 03:03 PM
martindale's not a nobody-- he's a good position coach getting his shot to move up. . . every good DC was a rookie at one point. . .

not being a proven commodity is far from the same thing as being a bum. . . .

Was he ever a d.c at any other level?

Dean
05-29-2010, 03:14 PM
Was he ever a d.c at any other level?

He was a defensive coordinator in college (Western Kentucky) I believe.

TXBRONC
05-29-2010, 03:20 PM
Amen T-ned. I posted this with the only intent being making a cetain group of posters aware that McD is wholely responsible for the players, coaching staff, and nearly all things Bronco. It is his right but with choice comes responsibility. Whether this year's outcome is praise or shame, it is his baby. No one else.

He has been given free rein to build the team as he saw fit. In my eyes, this year he is no longer a rookie head coach and he has the team he built. He must either sink or swim. if the team shows significant improvement then I will believe he is on the right track that would say a lot about his ability to be a head coach. If not, then that also speaks loud and clear.

Yeah so much for the idea that Nolan's departure has anything to do with tampering. McDaniels let him go, he went out got another job end of story.

TXBRONC
05-29-2010, 03:21 PM
He was a defensive coordinator in college (Western Kentucky) I believe.

Thanks Dean. I thought I heard/read somewhere that he had some experience as a d.c.

Lonestar
05-29-2010, 03:40 PM
Yes no and inbetween

No. ONE knows what happened for sure. Everything else is conjecture or bovine excretment.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

jhildebrand
05-29-2010, 03:41 PM
I highly doubt that Josh wanted the cluster**** of a coaching staff that Shanahan is known for. Not to mention that Josh could then go get someone who would be a better fit for his power running scheme.

Well you can't have it both ways! I believe Josh didn't want Turner nor Dennison. In fact, Bowlen applied a lot of pressure early on for him to keep them.

But then if Josh didn't want those guys, specifically Turner, why then play the games that he did? Why not just let Turner go as well? :confused:

That's what a lot of people have taken issue with! He played a game for no other reason than the sake of playing a game!

jhildebrand
05-29-2010, 03:43 PM
Amen T-ned. I posted this with the only intent being making a cetain group of posters aware that McD is wholely responsible for the players, coaching staff, and nearly all things Bronco. It is his right but with choice comes responsibility. Whether this year's outcome is praise or shame, it is his baby. No one else.

He has been given free rein to build the team as he saw fit. In my eyes, this year he is no longer a rookie head coach and he has the team he built. He must either sink or swim. if the team shows significant improvement then I will believe he is on the right track that would say a lot about his ability to be a head coach. If not, then that also speaks loud and clear.

I have been saying as much myself. People still want to cling to the idea the Xanders is somehow something more than a contracts and cap guy.

Josh is in complete control of every facet of this team. This is his baby as he wanted it. Time to put up or shut up.

Slick
05-29-2010, 03:59 PM
Of course he's doing it his way, and of course we know he's responsible. I wouldn't have expected anything different. We had a finesse team with no leadership. If he succeeds or fails, he wants to do it on his terms, with his guys...not the scrubs Shanahan left him.

This team needed to be purged anyways.

Bosco
05-29-2010, 04:02 PM
In the case of Nolan, they concocted this story about how Nolan and Miami worked out a deal behind McDaniels back, then when McDaniels found out, he asked Nolan if he wanted to go coach in Miami. When Nolan said yes, McDaniels, being the nice guy he is, released him from his contract.

With all due respect, you can drop that bullshit right about now. I've posted the links reporting this to be the case including right here, where you even addressed it (http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=978869&postcount=119) and this one here. (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4837350&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines)

I don't care if you want to stick your head in the sand regarding these reports or not, but I'll be damned if you're going to sit there and accuse me of being a liar when you know very well that credible media sources are reporting the same thing.

Lonestar
05-29-2010, 04:07 PM
Talk about revizionist history. Just make it up as you go and if you repeat it eniugh it becomes true at least in mini minds.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Bosco
05-29-2010, 04:14 PM
Well you can't have it both ways! I believe Josh didn't want Turner nor Dennison. In fact, Bowlen applied a lot of pressure early on for him to keep them. Kinda true. I've heard from some pretty reputable sources that McD was not that high on Turner, but Joe Ellis stepped in and convinced him to give Turner a shot. I've never heard that he didn't want Dennison.


But then if Josh didn't want those guys, specifically Turner, why then play the games that he did? Why not just let Turner go as well? :confused:

That's what a lot of people have taken issue with! He played a game for no other reason than the sake of playing a game!

1) I think that unlike Dennison, he felt there was a greater chance that Turner could adopt his teachings to the power running scheme.

2) The Broncos have made it pretty well known that they aren't going to stand in the way of their coaches getting a promotion, which all of them except Nolan (technically) got. Shanahan first wanted to interview Turner for the same job he had here, which was wisely denied by Josh.

Tned
05-29-2010, 05:30 PM
With all due respect, you can drop that bullshit right about now. I've posted the links reporting this to be the case including right here, where you even addressed it (http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=978869&postcount=119) and this one here. (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4837350&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines)

I don't care if you want to stick your head in the sand regarding these reports or not, but I'll be damned if you're going to sit there and accuse me of being a liar when you know very well that credible media sources are reporting the same thing.

Wow, that's an impressive display of indignation. In fact, checking the scoreboard, you received 9's across the board for that effort, with the exception of the Chinese judge that only gave you a 4....

As to your 'proof', even in the one article that says that a 'source' says the Broncos believed Miami talked to Nolan before requesting to interview Nolan, it also says the Broncos were "ready to part ways" with Nolan.

Regardless, my point remains. Many people are very quick to pick and choose their 'facts', often shaky, out of context or non existant, to demonize former players and coaches.

Tned
05-29-2010, 05:34 PM
Talk about revizionist history. Just make it up as you go and if you repeat it eniugh it becomes true at least in mini minds.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

I don't know about the mini minds, but yes, that is the theory that many seem to operate under. Just keep repeating an opinion in a way that makes it appear to be a fact, and one day it will become a fact.

honz
05-29-2010, 05:44 PM
Mike Nolan sucks and I never liked him.

Bosco
05-29-2010, 06:29 PM
Wow, that's an impressive display of indignation. In fact, checking the scoreboard, you received 9's across the board for that effort, with the exception of the Chinese judge that only gave you a 4....

As to your 'proof', even in the one article that says that a 'source' says the Broncos believed Miami talked to Nolan before requesting to interview Nolan, it also says the Broncos were "ready to part ways" with Nolan.

Regardless, my point remains. Many people are very quick to pick and choose their 'facts', often shaky, out of context or non existant, to demonize former players and coaches.

You can disagree with or call bullshit on any thing I post and I won't care, but the second you cross the line into calling me a liar, then we got a problem.

Thus endeth the sermon. You may go now.


Mike Nolan sucks and I never liked him. He's a pretty good, but not great DC. The book on him going back to his days with the Giants is that once people figure out his defense, he tends to fall back into a conservative read and react approach, and then he usually gets shredded. This is pretty much exactly what happened in 2009, but because of the fast start people are acting like he was some great coordinator who will be impossible to replace.

Personally I was hoping for Dom Capers, but I think Martindale is going to surprise alot of people.

Tned
05-29-2010, 06:58 PM
You can disagree with or call bullshit on any thing I post and I won't care, but the second you cross the line into calling me a liar, then we got a problem.

Thus endeth the sermon. You may go now.


Sorry to disappoint, but I won't be going anywhere. As to calling you a liar? I really am not equipped to diagnose paranoia, so you're on your own. Good luck with that.

Tempus Fugit
05-29-2010, 07:05 PM
The irony content with some of the posts in this thread is just off the charts.

atwater27
05-29-2010, 08:21 PM
Thus endeth the sermon. You may go now.



http://images.pictureshunt.com/pics/l/lmao-3364.jpg

jhildebrand
05-29-2010, 09:37 PM
He's a pretty good, but not great DC. The book on him going back to his days with the Giants is that once people figure out his defense, he tends to fall back into a conservative read and react approach, and then he usually gets shredded. This is pretty much exactly what happened in 2009, but because of the fast start people are acting like he was some great coordinator who will be impossible to replace.



I don't know where to begin with this one. Nolan is a great DC. His D's average +34 in takeaways. AVERAGE. The next closest DC isn't even close.

I also wouldn't be quick to slam the D for the problems last year. They were the biggest reason for the team being 6-0. The problem, IMHO, was the O's phenomenal 8 minutes TOP in the second half of games.

jhildebrand
05-29-2010, 09:40 PM
Kinda true. I've heard from some pretty reputable sources that McD was not that high on Turner, but Joe Ellis stepped in and convinced him to give Turner a shot. I've never heard that he didn't want Dennison.

I don't know that he didn't want Dennison to begin with. It was clear at the end of this season that Dennison would be gone.




1) I think that unlike Dennison, he felt there was a greater chance that Turner could adopt his teachings to the power running scheme.

Although we are speculating, I could see this being a reasonable scenario. Although, I do like the new blood at RB coach.



2) The Broncos have made it pretty well known that they aren't going to stand in the way of their coaches getting a promotion, which all of them except Nolan (technically) got. Shanahan first wanted to interview Turner for the same job he had here, which was wisely denied by Josh.

Why was it wisely denied? To most, it just looked like he was playing games.

Bosco
05-29-2010, 10:10 PM
As to calling you a liar? I really am not equipped to diagnose paranoia, so you're on your own. Good luck with that.

Paranoia eh?

- You ask for clarification of my statement, claiming it was the first you had heard of such. (http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=978544&postcount=92)

- I provide clarification with explanation and relevant link. (http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=978869&postcount=119) Also make note of the date.

- And then here (http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=985719&postcount=7) and here (http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=985875&postcount=34) you specifically mention the time frame and story you claim to have never heard about before I brought it up, and claim it was concocted.

Yeah, I'm clearly paranoid here. I'm sure it doesn't have anything to do with you thinking I was unlikely to notice what you were doing, or you lacking the integrity required to even say so much as "hey man, my bad". Kinda ironic given that picture in your sig. Almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy there.

Anyways, I've said my peace on this issue. Congrats on torpedoing your own credibility though.

Tned
05-29-2010, 10:20 PM
Paranoia eh?

- You ask for clarification of my statement, claiming it was the first you had heard of such. (http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=978544&postcount=92)

- I provide clarification with explanation and relevant link. (http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=978869&postcount=119) Also make note of the date.

- And then here (http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=985719&postcount=7) and here (http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=985875&postcount=34) you specifically mention the time frame and story you claim to have never heard about before I brought it up, and claim it was concocted.

Yeah, I'm clearly paranoid here. I'm sure it doesn't have anything to do with you thinking I was unlikely to notice what you were doing, or you lacking the integrity required to even say so much as "hey man, my bad". Kinda ironic given that picture in your sig. Almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy there.

Anyways, I've said my peace on this issue. Congrats on torpedoing your own credibility though.

Hey man, thanks for the congrats! Much appreciated! :2thumbs:

atwater27
05-29-2010, 10:21 PM
paranoia eh?

- you ask for clarification of my statement, claiming it was the first you had heard of such. (http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=978544&postcount=92)

- i provide clarification with explanation and relevant link. (http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=978869&postcount=119) also make note of the date.

- and then here (http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=985719&postcount=7) and here (http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=985875&postcount=34) you specifically mention the time frame and story you claim to have never heard about before i brought it up, and claim it was concocted.

Yeah, i'm clearly paranoid here. I'm sure it doesn't have anything to do with you thinking i was unlikely to notice what you were doing, or you lacking the integrity required to even say so much as "hey man, my bad". Kinda ironic given that picture in your sig. Almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy there.

Anyways, i've said my peace on this issue. Congrats on torpedoing your own credibility though.

bozo hath spoken!

Bosco
05-29-2010, 10:29 PM
I don't know where to begin with this one. Nolan is a great DC. His D's average +34 in takeaways. AVERAGE. The next closest DC isn't even close. If he's so great, then why has he only once in his career had a top 5 defense? Why has he, with the exception of his first DC gig, never stayed with one team as a DC for more than 3 years? Why did he have to join the Ravens as a freaking receivers coach after the Jets canned him after just one season?

Mike Nolan is what he is...a good but not great DC who does very well building from the ground up but has never shown the ability to get his units over the hump. He's alot like Dan Reeves and Marty Schottenheimer in that regard.


I also wouldn't be quick to slam the D for the problems last year. They were the biggest reason for the team being 6-0. The problem, IMHO, was the O's phenomenal 8 minutes TOP in the second half of games. It wasn't our offense that caused our defense to drop from looking like the league's best to one of the league's worst in the course of the season. It didn't help, but the fact that we couldn't use smoke and mirrors to cover up for a weak DL and far too conservative game calling is what did us in on defense.


I don't know that he didn't want Dennison to begin with. It was clear at the end of this season that Dennison would be gone. I'm not sure. I just heard that Ellis had to take Josh into keeping Bobby Turner and no mention was made of Dennison, so naturally I assume that Josh was more willing to give him a chance.


Although we are speculating, I could see this being a reasonable scenario. Although, I do like the new blood at RB coach. Me too. I was sad to see Turner leave but we got an excellent replacement for him. It's comforting to know that Moreno has been compared to Tiki Barber, and we just acquired the guy who was coaching him when he had his best years.


Why was it wisely denied? To most, it just looked like he was playing games. Because it sends a message to the rest of the league that if you want to go after our assistants, you need to be offering them a promotion. Had they let Turner walk without a promotion, but say next year Ed Donatell wants to leave to coach the DB's with another team and they won't let him leave. Well now you have to deal with the "why him and not me?" problems that would come with it.

TXBRONC
05-29-2010, 10:49 PM
I don't know that he didn't want Dennison to begin with. It was clear at the end of this season that Dennison would be gone.




Although we are speculating, I could see this being a reasonable scenario. Although, I do like the new blood at RB coach.



Why was it wisely denied? To most, it just looked like he was playing games.

My understanding has to this point has been that Bowlen encourgaed McDaniels to keep Taylor, Dennison, and Bates.

Bosco
05-29-2010, 10:59 PM
My understanding has to this point has been that Bowlen encourgaed McDaniels to keep Taylor, Dennison, and Bates.

I never heard Bates included in that discussion, which makes sense since there was no point to keeping him.

Tned
05-29-2010, 11:15 PM
I never heard Bates included in that discussion, which makes sense since there was no point to keeping him.

Bates name was brought up as one of five coaches retained after the Shanahan purge. It was reported that Bowlen would let the new coach decide which, if any, of those five to keep. Obviously, Bates staying on would have been much more likely if a defensive coach, like Spagnuolo, was hired.

TXBRONC
05-29-2010, 11:24 PM
Bates name was brought up as one of five coaches retained after the Shanahan purge. It was reported that Bowlen would let the new coach decide which, if any, of those five to keep. Obviously, Bates staying on would have been much more likely if a defensive coach, like Spagnuolo, was hired.

IIRC Bates could have stayed but he would have been demoted so he asked to be released. So McDaniels didn't fire him but he mad things uncomfortable enough that Bates wanted out.

Timmy!
05-29-2010, 11:33 PM
Here we go again. It's shirts vs skins in here. Again....*yawn*

Did the defense improve with Nolan as the DC? Yup.
Did the defense improve with McD as HC? Yup.
Did the "improved" defense give up something like 174 yards rushing on average the last 8 games of the season? Your damn effing right it did.

Neither camp, at present time, has nothing but mud to sling. It's far to early to tell either way who was at fault, wasn't at fault, who is best for the team, etc etc etc.

Slick said it best I think. McD is calling the shots. Nolan is gone, for better, or worse. I give the entire coaching staff and front office equal blame/kudos 1 year into a full regime change. Things will be much clearer come January of 2011. Until then it's just a pissing contest. Of course, that's just IMO.

honz
05-29-2010, 11:43 PM
I love you Timmy.

Tempus Fugit
05-30-2010, 02:21 AM
Here we go again. It's shirts vs skins in here. Again....*yawn*

Did the defense improve with Nolan as the DC? Yup.
Did the defense improve with McD as HC? Yup.
Did the "improved" defense give up something like 174 yards rushing on average the last 8 games of the season? Your damn effing right it did.

Neither camp, at present time, has nothing but mud to sling. It's far to early to tell either way who was at fault, wasn't at fault, who is best for the team, etc etc etc.

Slick said it best I think. McD is calling the shots. Nolan is gone, for better, or worse. I give the entire coaching staff and front office equal blame/kudos 1 year into a full regime change. Things will be much clearer come January of 2011. Until then it's just a pissing contest. Of course, that's just IMO.

I don't know why anyone's looking to fault either person about that defense. That was a 3-4 defense without a defensive line. It was inevitable that teams would eventually realize that they could just run the ball right down the team's throat. You can't find 25 new starters in one season, and you can't coach crap players up to superstar level. Scheme can help, but it can only get you so far.

All anyone should need to do is take a look at what happened with Pittsburgh minus Polamalu to understand how talent matters.

Bosco
05-30-2010, 02:28 AM
IIRC Bates could have stayed but he would have been demoted so he asked to be released. So McDaniels didn't fire him but he mad things uncomfortable enough that Bates wanted out.

Short of going to the scouting department, there was no demotion for Bates to take. He was only the quarterbacks coach in 2008. Sure, he wasn't going to get to call the plays, but he couldn't (and still can't) hold Josh's jock in that department and that's even with copying Josh's system.

Of all the coaches we've lost since Shanahan got booted, Jeremy Bates is the one I'll miss the least.

Lonestar
05-30-2010, 06:06 AM
I fail to undrstand the logic of trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear.

Why would Josh keep either BT or RD as coaches as they were one dimensional as coaches they had a specialty they taught ZBS and running from it. Nothing else in the quiver but ZBS.

They were kept last year at the behest of the owner as they were the best at what they did the year before nothing more nothing less.

Both werw told there was a new sheriff in town and there would be new laws they had to enforce. PBS and it seems neither of them could cut the mustard in teaching their players in how to do it.

Both are toast in DEN as were some of theirs players that were unable to grasp blocking techniques taught in HS and perfected in College. They could not play with the big boys so they were cut

Josh honored the owners wishes/loyalty, only to have them fail in trying to do something they had no clue in doing.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

TXBRONC
05-30-2010, 08:20 AM
Short of going to the scouting department, there was no demotion for Bates to take. He was only the quarterbacks coach in 2008. Sure, he wasn't going to get to call the plays, but he couldn't (and still can't) hold Josh's jock in that department and that's even with copying Josh's system.

Of all the coaches we've lost since Shanahan got booted, Jeremy Bates is the one I'll miss the least.

Maybe in your world it not a demotion but in the real world when you have responsibility to call plays one year and then next you going to that's called a demotion.

It easy to look like a play calling genius when you have Tom Brady throwing the Randy Moss and Wes Welker quite another thing when it's quarterback as limited and Orton. The play calling last year was less stellar.

jhildebrand
05-30-2010, 12:00 PM
It wasn't our offense that caused our defense to drop from looking like the league's best to one of the league's worst in the course of the season. It didn't help, but the fact that we couldn't use smoke and mirrors to cover up for a weak DL and far too conservative game calling is what did us in on defense.


Here we go again. It's shirts vs skins in here. Again....*yawn*

Did the defense improve with Nolan as the DC? Yup.
Did the defense improve with McD as HC? Yup.
Did the "improved" defense give up something like 174 yards rushing on average the last 8 games of the season? Your damn effing right it did.




I don't know why anyone's looking to fault either person about that defense. That was a 3-4 defense without a defensive line. It was inevitable that teams would eventually realize that they could just run the ball right down the team's throat. You can't find 25 new starters in one season, and you can't coach crap players up to superstar level. Scheme can help, but it can only get you so far.

All anyone should need to do is take a look at what happened with Pittsburgh minus Polamalu to understand how talent matters.

Here is why pepople, like myself and others, are critical.

The "supporter" camp if you will supposedly are all about the team. Yet as Tned has pointed out there is usually some concerted effort to villify and demonize anybody cast away from Survivor Island Broncos addition-Mike Nolan ESPECIALLY.

This thread is classic evidence of it as well. You can put down Nolan all you want. You can put down the Defense all you want. At the end of the day, going into the 2009 season the D was supposed to be garbage. The D was a patchwork and mishmash of guys and castofffs from other teams.

If Nolan is average and cant hold a candle to Josh as some put it, then why did his unit COMPLETELY OUTPERFORM the O even with their so called "collapse?" :confused:

The D imporved in EVERY single statistical category across the board. The O on the other hand supposedly has the boy genius running it, had all the superstars, had the high draft picks, yet couldn't stay on the field for more than 8 minutes in the second half of games. Couldn't stay away from 3 and outs. DECLINED in every statistical category possible. Yet there is no mud flinging to be done there. :rolleyes:

That is my point in all of this. The so called "supporters" supposedly support the team no matter what but villify anything ex-bronco as mentioned. YET they wont look at the O with the same critical eye and when somebody else does, they aren't a "real fan" or "Chicago is that way" or some other garbage.

I don't expect this trend to cease, either. With this year's draft only three players were selected for the defensive side of the ball. 2 of them are CB's in an already crowded position.

The fact is it takes 3 phases working to win a football game. However, to fault the D, turning a blind eye to the O, is laughable at best! Without that so called average D and average DC, this team doesn't even come close to 8 wins.

rcsodak
05-30-2010, 12:17 PM
Yes, but there were a lot of people that were claiming that they only parted ways because Nolan wanted out to go to Miami.

And that might still be the case, no?

He'd be pretty stupid to admit to already talking to them while under contract with Denver.

Just sayin'. :coffee:

rcsodak
05-30-2010, 12:21 PM
Which simply doesn't make sense anyway seeing how McD and the Broncos had Nolan under contract.

The bottom line here is Nolan could be here but he isn't because somebody with enough pull wanted him gone.

The problems will come if the D doesn't perform at a level that last year's D did statistically speaking.

Are you referring to the first half or second half, when you refer to "statistically speaking"?

Hell, for all we know, McD was running the D in the beginning, then handed it off to Nolan, only to Fail.

Bosco
05-30-2010, 02:54 PM
Maybe in your world it not a demotion but in the real world when you have responsibility to call plays one year and then next you going to that's called a demotion. And that's just too bad for Bates. We brought in one of the brightest offensive minds in all of football who was just a year removed from calling the greatest offense in league history. Bates had 1 year of play calling (where he copied alot of McD's system) and gave us the 16th ranked offense.


Here is why pepople, like myself and others, are critical.

The "supporter" camp if you will supposedly are all about the team. Yet as Tned has pointed out there is usually some concerted effort to villify and demonize anybody cast away from Survivor Island Broncos addition-Mike Nolan ESPECIALLY. Who is getting vilified? Cutler? He launched a PR war against the Broncos simply because he was pissed that his boyfriend(s) didn't get to keep their jobs. Then he had the nerve to LIE about ever wanting a trade and insulted the entire Broncos fanbase.

Scheffler? He acted like a douche all season and it got so bad several veterans approached Josh and asked him to deal with him and Marshall, which lead to them getting benched in the season finale.

Marshall? His problems go way back to pre-NFL days.

Nolan? Highly probable that he was partaking in unethical discussions with the Dolphins while still under contract with Denver.

I don't see Turner, Dennison, or any of the other players who left getting vilified. Just the ones who gave us a reason to.

TXBRONC
05-30-2010, 06:26 PM
That is my point in all of this. The so called "supporters" supposedly support the team no matter what but villify anything ex-bronco as mentioned. YET they wont look at the O with the same critical eye and when somebody else does, they aren't a "real fan" or "Chicago is that way" or some other garbage.

I have to differ with you just a little bit J. It's ok to blame the offensive line but nobody else can be blamed especially Orton.

Softskull
05-30-2010, 06:41 PM
I have to differ with you just a little bit J. It's ok to blame the offensive line but nobody else can be blamed especially Orton.

You're probably joking, so please excuse if that was the case, but here are the stats on the Oline for pass blocking over the last three years:

Team Rank Sacks Adjusted Sack

2007 DEN 14 32 5.90%
2008 DEN 4 12 3.30%
2009 DEN 12 34 5.90%

We had the 12th best pass blocking Oline last year. Considering how immobile Orton was, that's actually quite good.

(Teams are ranked according to adjusted sack rate, which gives sacks (plus intentional grounding penalties) per pass attempt adjusted for down, distance, and opponent. Pass blocking stats are explained further here. Our sack totals may differ slightly from official NFL totals depending on the league's retroactive statistical adjustments.)

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

TXBRONC
05-30-2010, 07:02 PM
You're probably joking, so please excuse if that was the case, but here are the stats on the Oline for pass blocking over the last three years:

Team Rank Sacks Adjusted Sack

2007 DEN 14 32 5.90%
2008 DEN 4 12 3.30%
2009 DEN 12 34 5.90%

We had the 12th best pass blocking Oline last year. Considering how immobile Orton was, that's actually quite good.

(Teams are ranked according to adjusted sack rate, which gives sacks (plus intentional grounding penalties) per pass attempt adjusted for down, distance, and opponent. Pass blocking stats are explained further here. Our sack totals may differ slightly from official NFL totals depending on the league's retroactive statistical adjustments.)

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

I wasn't kidding. Haven't seen posts that criticize the offensive line? Some posters will not accept the fact Orton has limitations that hurt the offensive line. Orton's immobility imho isn't as much of problem if he had the ability to step away from pressure and the fact he's holds onto the ball way to long.

The offensive line is very good when healthy. It's not that their perfect and some people would have you believe that they are only one's responsible and Orton above all others shares no responsibility in short comings of the offense.

Tempus Fugit
05-30-2010, 08:21 PM
Here is why pepople, like myself and others, are critical.

The "supporter" camp if you will supposedly are all about the team. Yet as Tned has pointed out there is usually some concerted effort to villify and demonize anybody cast away from Survivor Island Broncos addition-Mike Nolan ESPECIALLY.

Actually, most of the people who have been "critical" have been the same people all along. It's mostly hearkening back to one or more of their woobies being shown the door, and their resultant butt hurt. It's mostly that simple.


This thread is classic evidence of it as well. You can put down Nolan all you want. You can put down the Defense all you want. At the end of the day, going into the 2009 season the D was supposed to be garbage. The D was a patchwork and mishmash of guys and castofffs from other teams.

If Nolan is average and cant hold a candle to Josh as some put it, then why did his unit COMPLETELY OUTPERFORM the O even with their so called "collapse?" :confused:

1.) I didn't put down Nolan

2.) The defense didn't COMPLETELY OUTPERFORM the O. Frankly, the moment you made that claim, you became utterly useless as an analyst.


The D imporved in EVERY single statistical category across the board. The O on the other hand supposedly has the boy genius running it, had all the superstars, had the high draft picks, yet couldn't stay on the field for more than 8 minutes in the second half of games. Couldn't stay away from 3 and outs. DECLINED in every statistical category possible. Yet there is no mud flinging to be done there. :rolleyes:

Again, looking for "blame" in a first year that was as successful as Denver's seems stupid in the first place. However, since you seem determined to do so....

Reality:

The Offense scored 22.67 ppg for the first 6 games
The Defense surrendered 6.6 ppg for the first 6 games

The Offense scored 19.3 ppg for the final 10 games
The Defense surrendered 25.8 ppg for the final 10 games.

Of the eight losses, only one of them happened when the opponent scored fewer than 27 points. Go compare that with rest of the league, and you'll find that such a situation does not compare favorably with most other teams.

You can try blaming the offense all you want. No matter how often you do, however, that approach simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The defense had a whole lot to do with both the great start and the much less impressive finish.


That is my point in all of this. The so called "supporters" supposedly support the team no matter what but villify anything ex-bronco as mentioned. YET they wont look at the O with the same critical eye and when somebody else does, they aren't a "real fan" or "Chicago is that way" or some other garbage.

I haven't vilified Nolan. I've pointed to problems with Cutler, Marshall and Scheffler, and those problems are very public, very clear, and very damaging to a team. I didn't claim the offense would click instantly, nor did I claim that the defense would click instantly. Go back and read all of my posts, and you'll fine that I've been consistently objective and objectively consistent.


I don't expect this trend to cease, either. With this year's draft only three players were selected for the defensive side of the ball. 2 of them are CB's in an already crowded position.

Well, when you ignore trades and free agency, you ignore 2/3 of the methods of player acquisition. For example, Jamal Williams wasn't drafted. Care to bet on whether or not he's the team's starting NT if he's healthy heading into the season?


The fact is it takes 3 phases working to win a football game. However, to fault the D, turning a blind eye to the O, is laughable at best! Without that so called average D and average DC, this team doesn't even come close to 8 wins.

And had that D played better than 25.8 ppg after week 6, the team could have gotten more than 8 wins. That's the nature of football.

Your general premise is sound, if abundantly obvious: The defense played well at times, particularly early on in the season before teams got the book on it, and it helped win some games. That ignores the rest of the story, though, and that's why your overall analysis ends up being useless.

silkamilkamonico
05-31-2010, 02:30 AM
You're probably joking, so please excuse if that was the case, but here are the stats on the Oline for pass blocking over the last three years:

Team Rank Sacks Adjusted Sack

2007 DEN 14 32 5.90%
2008 DEN 4 12 3.30%
2009 DEN 12 34 5.90%

We had the 12th best pass blocking Oline last year. Considering how immobile Orton was, that's actually quite good.

(Teams are ranked according to adjusted sack rate, which gives sacks (plus intentional grounding penalties) per pass attempt adjusted for down, distance, and opponent. Pass blocking stats are explained further here. Our sack totals may differ slightly from official NFL totals depending on the league's retroactive statistical adjustments.)

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

The stat is decieving, in a sense where anyone who watched the Bronco games could see that McDaniels didn't even bother calling plays that would have put Orton at risk of being sacked, which is why you saw so many screens, and the infamouse Orton throw aways with no defender even in the pocket at times. I would be more curious to see a stat on where Denver ranked at how many 15+ yard throws they had in comparison with the rest of the NFL.

TXBRONC
05-31-2010, 08:39 AM
The stat is decieving, in a sense where anyone who watched the Bronco games could see that McDaniels didn't even bother calling plays that would have put Orton at risk of being sacked, which is why you saw so many screens, and the infamouse Orton throw aways with no defender even in the pocket at times. I would be more curious to see a stat on where Denver ranked at how many 15+ yard throws they had in comparison with the rest of the NFL.

Silk I don't think the plays that McDaniels ran were because a fear of Orton getting sacked or at least not completely. I think had more to do with what Orton was comfortable and what he's capable of.

Softskull
05-31-2010, 09:33 AM
The stat is decieving, in a sense where anyone who watched the Bronco games could see that McDaniels didn't even bother calling plays that would have put Orton at risk of being sacked, which is why you saw so many screens, and the infamouse Orton throw aways with no defender even in the pocket at times. I would be more curious to see a stat on where Denver ranked at how many 15+ yard throws they had in comparison with the rest of the NFL.

You could be right, I dont have the patience to break that down, but here is another McD team where we had same Oline, same WRs, different QBs, one with great pocket presence, the other not so much.

Team Rank Sacks Adjusted Sack

2007 NE 4 21 4.10%
2008 NE 26 48 8.50%
2009 NE 2 18 3.60%

nevcraw
05-31-2010, 10:27 AM
And that's just too bad for Bates. We brought in
one of the brightest offensive minds in all of football who was just a year removed from calling the greatest offense in league history.

was that the same greatest offense in league history that was exposed and systematically dispatched by the Giants in the Super Bowl?
Maybe i am not as easily impressed but without the ring - you can't have the title of "greatest in league history".
or maybe you were just trying to be dramatic.

TXBRONC
05-31-2010, 10:39 AM
was that the same greatest offense in league history that was exposed and systematically dispatched by the Giants in the Super Bowl?
Maybe i am not as easily impressed but without the ring - you can't have the title of "greatest in league history".
or maybe you were just trying to be dramatic.

Good point. I think McDaniels is bright but hard for that come through when key players are not very talented.

jhildebrand
05-31-2010, 11:57 AM
I have to differ with you just a little bit J. It's ok to blame the offensive line but nobody else can be blamed especially Orton.
You're absolutely right!

That's goes back to the idea of villifying anything that is changed or gone.

Those bashing it are using it as an opportunity to continue to bash Shanny, or they know the change to PBS is coming.

jhildebrand
05-31-2010, 12:38 PM
Actually, most of the people who have been "critical" have been the same people all along. It's mostly hearkening back to one or more of their woobies being shown the door, and their resultant butt hurt. It's mostly that simple.

The exact point I made. People are so arrogant to proclaim the critics are critical only because a player they liked were shown the door.

Truthfully it is a weak tactic at best! It's simply a way to deflect criticism without actually composing a logical response to any valid criticism.




1.) I didn't put down Nolan

I dont recall every saying you did.



2.) The defense didn't COMPLETELY OUTPERFORM the O. Frankly, the moment you made that claim, you became utterly useless as an analyst.


In the context of my post, they did! You can't argue anything but. The D was the mish mash. The D received half the attention the O did from the day McD took over. The D in 2008 ranked in the bottom of almost every statistical category. At the end of the 09 season the D improved DRAMATICALLY in every category with exception to run D and they still improved there albeit by one spot no thanks to the O!

Yet McD found it fit to tinker with the D immediately in the offseason yet we have yet to see the same heat applied to the O for their failures!

You call my analysis useless :lol: I will get to yours here in a minute.


Reality:

The Offense scored 22.67 ppg for the first 6 games
The Defense surrendered 6.6 ppg for the first 6 games

The Offense scored 19.3 ppg for the final 10 games
The Defense surrendered 25.8 ppg for the final 10 games.

Of the eight losses, only one of them happened when the opponent scored fewer than 27 points. Go compare that with rest of the league, and you'll find that such a situation does not compare favorably with most other teams.

You can try blaming the offense all you want. No matter how often you do, however, that approach simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The defense had a whole lot to do with both the great start and the much less impressive finish.

This is where your analysis is downright silly. Again, you have proven my point! I made it clear that the most ardent supporters will crucify the D by completely turning a blind eye to the O.

Of course the D is going to be giving up in the rush D stats when the offense can't stay on the field. Of course the D is going to suffer when Orton turns it over for pick 6's and the score is out of hand. You do know teams run the ball late in games with the lead...don't you :confused: Maybe you don't because McDaniels wasn't smart enough to do it in Washington! New QB, new RT, who was now the blind side T and basically a rookie, Moreno had ripped off 44 yards in 3 carries and what does McD do? Screen pass, bubble screen, throw, throw, throw!

The bottom line is 8 minutes TOP by the offense in second half of games is going to kill the D. Yet let's fire Nolan :rolleyes:

McD went on with Scott and Al and boldly proclaimed how the 08 offense was all but a joke and how he was going to improve them dramatically and in the 09 season. They made major declines in all the meaningful statistical categories. YET LETS FIRE NOLAN.

The Pittsburgh game was close late in the 3rd quarter? What happened there? The offense couldn't get a first down in second half. The offense threw three interceptions. The offense could only score 3 points the entire game. The offense couldnt even hold the ball for even 8 minutes in the second half.

IIRC, the D-thanks to Ayers fumble return for a TD, got the team back in the game to a 14-10 score. It was 14-10 at the end of the third. Yet Orton's picks and 0 first downs DID NOTHING TO HELP. YET ITS THE D WE SHOULD FAULT? :confused: Hillarious.

I can find several games in the second half just like this one. The D kept the team in the game to a point and the offense or ST's gave it away.

Any D in the NFL on the field as long as ours was would be torched at some point. Kyle Orton completed 7 passes in the second half. 7! WOW. Totally the D's fault.

I could continue attacking this all day long. At the end of the day, football 101 is the team with the lead, especially one who knows the opposing O is inept, is going to run the ball.




I haven't vilified Nolan. I've pointed to problems with Cutler, Marshall and Scheffler, and those problems are very public, very clear, and very damaging to a team. I didn't claim the offense would click instantly, nor did I claim that the defense would click instantly. Go back and read all of my posts, and you'll fine that I've been consistently objective and objectively consistent.


Never said you did. I spoke in general. However, Josh McDaniels said the o would click. He said he expected the team to be in the playoffs. Am I supposed to not believe him? Should I give him the rookie HC excuse?




Well, when you ignore trades and free agency, you ignore 2/3 of the methods of player acquisition. For example, Jamal Williams wasn't drafted. Care to bet on whether or not he's the team's starting NT if he's healthy heading into the season?

9 of 11 starters on D are 30+ years of age. The lesson learned under shanahan is that you can't depend on FA to build your D. At some point you have to draft and start youth.




And had that D played better than 25.8 ppg after week 6, the team could have gotten more than 8 wins. That's the nature of football.

Again, look at the O's contributing factors! Terrible 3rd down percentage, too many three and outs, no TOP, inability to run, the insistence to pass when the team could run, turnovers.



Your general premise is sound, if abundantly obvious: The defense played well at times, particularly early on in the season before teams got the book on it, and it helped win some games. That ignores the rest of the story, though, and that's why your overall analysis ends up being useless.

Again, the point in context remains true. The D, despite their so called 'collapse', still improved across the board! The O did NOTHING but decline. Yet McD felt the most prudent thing to do when the offseason was only 5 minutes old was to tinker with the D and DC.

At the end of the day, he will either sink or swim because of that move.

jhildebrand
05-31-2010, 12:41 PM
Are you referring to the first half or second half, when you refer to "statistically speaking"?

Hell, for all we know, McD was running the D in the beginning, then handed it off to Nolan, only to Fail.

I never broke down the stats by first half of the season or second because I didn't have to.

The overall D ranking for 09 finished much better than 08. The pass D for 09 finished much better than 08. The run D finished one spot better than 08. Scoring D finished much better. All of that with the so called 'collpase' having taken place and DESPITE the fact by all accounts the D was going to be a 3 season project.

jhildebrand
05-31-2010, 12:45 PM
Nolan? Highly probable that he was partaking in unethical discussions with the Dolphins while still under contract with Denver.



Pure speculation! Again, this is the idea that the most ardent supporters of McD can speculate and make stuff up as they go EVEN THOUGH they vehimently deny some of the most basic mistakes or issues McD created himself.

Somehow Nolan was being unethical even though it is McD who has been caught in several lies. :rolleyes:

Cutler launched the PR campaign even though McD had been caught in lies regarding that situation. Cutler came back on his own time and dime to work things out. Do you remember what happened?

Look, I am not a pure McD hater. I give him props when they are due and criticism when it is due. However, I take serious issue with how far some will go to make stuff up to defend him-the same stuff the supporters accuse ONLY the critics of doing.

Lonestar
05-31-2010, 12:48 PM
You're absolutely right!

That's goes back to the idea of villifying anything that is changed or gone.

Those bashing it are using it as an opportunity to continue to bash Shanny, or they know the change to PBS is coming.

Or for some that thought mikey could do no wrong to show their colors of bashing Josh.

It is a two way street.

The ZBS is a losers excuse for not having talent at either the oline or RB slot. We all saw what was possible when BOTH were in play with the TD and poortis teams. But since all we accoplished was racking up yards between the 20's. And sucking in the RED zone for a decade. Those folks are facts.

Josh saw this after watching film and analzing the numbers.

Even with the oline playing every snap in the 08 season the running game with fresh legs every other week we did not have a GREAT RED Zone year.

Which shows that "great" QB great Oline and. Poor running backs still equals loser or mediocre seasons doing ZBS.

Josh tried using that super oline to convert to a style that has consistently won super bowls PBS. Only to find out either the OL coach could not teach it, the OL was not big enough or it was the combination of both.

Now he took steps to fix whatever the problem was.

Why anyone really thought with as many changes as were made to the team we would not have issues is way beyound good logical thinking.

I was expecting a 5-11 season or so.

While the LAST two games with a total collapse of the D came as a surprise to me it signaled a Major change at or near the top of the D food chain.

When nolan wanted and got a 315 NT that IMHO told me he was nuts. Especailly with journeyman DE's and rookie OLB's. Had he had some real talent there fields may have had a chance.

Gald he is gonzo.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Bosco
05-31-2010, 01:54 PM
was that the same greatest offense in league history that was exposed and systematically dispatched by the Giants in the Super Bowl? He wasn't "exposed" or "dispatched", but he was pretty limited by injuries to Brady and two of his linemen. Even then, his offense gave them a 14-10 lead with just over two minutes to play and it took a dropped interception and one of the biggest fluke plays in NFL history to get the Giants a win.


Maybe i am not as easily impressed but without the ring - you can't have the title of "greatest in league history".
or maybe you were just trying to be dramatic.

http://www.nfl.com/history/randf/records/team/scoring


Pure speculation! Again, this is the idea that the most ardent supporters of McD can speculate and make stuff up as they go EVEN THOUGH they vehimently deny some of the most basic mistakes or issues McD created himself. Actually it's speculation based on very solid reasoning by some very credible sources.


Somehow Nolan was being unethical even though it is McD who has been caught in several lies. :rolleyes: McD has never been caught in a single lie.


Cutler launched the PR campaign even though McD had been caught in lies regarding that situation. Cutler came back on his own time and dime to work things out. Do you remember what happened? I remember him showing up with his agent to what was supposed to be a 1 on 1 meeting with McDaniels and then crying foul when McDaniels in turn brought Xanders into the meeting. I also remember him giving a completely different version of the events in the meeting than what McD and Xanders gave.

I remember him lying about this all being over the trade rumors when it's been shown that he requested a trade after Bates left and long before the supposed trade talks happened. I remember him then publicly requesting a trade and then lying about wanting to be traded when he got to Chicago. Oh, and don't forget him celebrating when he found out about the trade.

Does it also count that his agent pulled very similar stunts with Steve McNair and Brett Favre?

silkamilkamonico
05-31-2010, 02:00 PM
LMAO at the contineous banter back and forth based on nothing but speculation.

"He said this!"

"Yea but he meant this!"

"Yea but this is obviously what happened!"

"No, this is obviously what happened!"

"This is what is going on based on the immediate past!"

"This is going on based on his entire tenure!"

"You're an idiot!"

You're all idiots.

Softskull
05-31-2010, 02:00 PM
Actually it's speculation

Exactly

Softskull
05-31-2010, 02:01 PM
You're all idiots.

Exactly

silkamilkamonico
05-31-2010, 02:05 PM
And as far as the Patriots losing the Super Bowl to the Giants and dissing the offense, please don't argue how Mcdaniels "great offense" was shut down without including the fact that Tom Brady was wearing a walking cast the week leading up to the game, and probably should not have even been playing because of a high ankle sprain.

Tempus Fugit
05-31-2010, 02:18 PM
The exact point I made. People are so arrogant to proclaim the critics are critical only because a player they liked were shown the door.

Truthfully it is a weak tactic at best! It's simply a way to deflect criticism without actually composing a logical response to any valid criticism.




I dont recall every saying you did.



In the context of my post, they did! You can't argue anything but. The D was the mish mash. The D received half the attention the O did from the day McD took over. The D in 2008 ranked in the bottom of almost every statistical category. At the end of the 09 season the D improved DRAMATICALLY in every category with exception to run D and they still improved there albeit by one spot no thanks to the O!

Yet McD found it fit to tinker with the D immediately in the offseason yet we have yet to see the same heat applied to the O for their failures!

You call my analysis useless :lol: I will get to yours here in a minute.



This is where your analysis is downright silly. Again, you have proven my point! I made it clear that the most ardent supporters will crucify the D by completely turning a blind eye to the O.

Of course the D is going to be giving up in the rush D stats when the offense can't stay on the field. Of course the D is going to suffer when Orton turns it over for pick 6's and the score is out of hand. You do know teams run the ball late in games with the lead...don't you :confused: Maybe you don't because McDaniels wasn't smart enough to do it in Washington! New QB, new RT, who was now the blind side T and basically a rookie, Moreno had ripped off 44 yards in 3 carries and what does McD do? Screen pass, bubble screen, throw, throw, throw!

The bottom line is 8 minutes TOP by the offense in second half of games is going to kill the D. Yet let's fire Nolan :rolleyes:

McD went on with Scott and Al and boldly proclaimed how the 08 offense was all but a joke and how he was going to improve them dramatically and in the 09 season. They made major declines in all the meaningful statistical categories. YET LETS FIRE NOLAN.

The Pittsburgh game was close late in the 3rd quarter? What happened there? The offense couldn't get a first down in second half. The offense threw three interceptions. The offense could only score 3 points the entire game. The offense couldnt even hold the ball for even 8 minutes in the second half.

IIRC, the D-thanks to Ayers fumble return for a TD, got the team back in the game to a 14-10 score. It was 14-10 at the end of the third. Yet Orton's picks and 0 first downs DID NOTHING TO HELP. YET ITS THE D WE SHOULD FAULT? :confused: Hillarious.

I can find several games in the second half just like this one. The D kept the team in the game to a point and the offense or ST's gave it away.

Any D in the NFL on the field as long as ours was would be torched at some point. Kyle Orton completed 7 passes in the second half. 7! WOW. Totally the D's fault.

I could continue attacking this all day long. At the end of the day, football 101 is the team with the lead, especially one who knows the opposing O is inept, is going to run the ball.



Never said you did. I spoke in general. However, Josh McDaniels said the o would click. He said he expected the team to be in the playoffs. Am I supposed to not believe him? Should I give him the rookie HC excuse?




9 of 11 starters on D are 30+ years of age. The lesson learned under shanahan is that you can't depend on FA to build your D. At some point you have to draft and start youth.




Again, look at the O's contributing factors! Terrible 3rd down percentage, too many three and outs, no TOP, inability to run, the insistence to pass when the team could run, turnovers.



Again, the point in context remains true. The D, despite their so called 'collapse', still improved across the board! The O did NOTHING but decline. Yet McD felt the most prudent thing to do when the offseason was only 5 minutes old was to tinker with the D and DC.

At the end of the day, he will either sink or swim because of that move.

My apologies. I didn't realize that you were another one for whom logic, facts and reason are a waste of time. Now that I know that, I can ignore you as I do the others who are the same way.

jhildebrand
05-31-2010, 02:20 PM
He wasn't "exposed" or "dispatched", but he was pretty limited by injuries to Brady and two of his linemen. Even then, his offense gave them a 14-10 lead with just over two minutes to play and it took a dropped interception and one of the biggest fluke plays in NFL history to get the Giants a win.

When it comes to the Broncos you argue everything is the D's fault because of the ppg in the second half of the season. Yet the Pats D held NYG to 17 points (which should be a win statistically speaking) and you still argue the D is at fault.

At what point should that high powered offense put up more points?

Dont make excuses for injuries either. Obviously Belichick and McD felt those guys gave them the best chance to win or they wouldn't have started them!




Actually it's speculation based on very solid reasoning by some very credible sources.

Link? Article? Source?



McD has never been caught in a single lie.

1. We only answered the phone.
2. Hillis will be a bronco for a long time to come
3. We aren't interested in trading Jay Cutler for picks.
4. No trade talks on Marshall. Then comes out that Jets backed out on Marshall in the season and post season because of the $ he wanted.
5. and on and on

Even an SI front page article recently listed McD among 4 coaches "known for bending the truth" LOL.

I guess SI is in the habit of lying themselves and calling innocent people liars with no reason whatsoever.

jhildebrand
05-31-2010, 02:26 PM
My apologies. I didn't realize that you were another one for whom logic, facts and reason are a waste of time. Now that I know that, I can ignore you as I do the others who are the same way.

Whaaa you put me on iggy? What a joke! I provided you with facts and logic and you reply with some bullshit about ignoring me. Why even bother. The fact is you couldn't answer the facts or logic so you resort to 5th grade tactics like you just pulled.

I thought it was fact the Broncos didn't have a first down against the Steelers (which I posted). [EDIT: second half first down]

I thought it was fact that the Broncos O could only score 3 points against the Steelers.

I thought it was a fact the O had less than 8 minutes TOP in the 2nd half of the Steelers game.

I thought it was fact Orton was injured against Washington.

I thought is was fact Harris was injured in the Washington game.

I thought it was fact Simms was in and a rookie protecting his blind side.

I thought it was fact that Moreno ripped off 44 yards on three carries to start the second half and McDaniels went to all pass despite a lead on the road and the formula for winning in the NFL is to run with a lead especially when they can't stop you.

Somehow that isn't fact in your world. Somehow that isn't logic. You just want to blindly blame the D DESPITE the facts.

Do me a favor, don't jump into a conversation if you can't keep up and sure as crap don't give me some cheap ass deflection like you just tried. It makes you look bad and quite honestly makes me a bit embarassed for you.

Softskull
05-31-2010, 02:27 PM
And as far as the Patriots losing the Super Bowl to the Giants and dissing the offense, please don't argue how Mcdaniels "great offense" was shut down without including the fact that Tom Brady was wearing a walking cast the week leading up to the game, and probably should not have even been playing because of a high ankle sprain.

Brady was definately crippled but that begs the great question. Will McD's offense work well without a top notch QB/WR/Oline? Any year that Josh hasn't had the trifecta, his numbers have been pedestrian at best (certainly normal Patriot-like numbers)

Year Team ypg ppg
2009 Denver 341 20.4
2008 NE 365 25.6
2007 NE 411 36.8
2006 NE 335 24.1
2005 NE 352 23.7
2004 NE 354 27.3

From the numbers above, you could make an arguement that it isnt the system, it's the talent.

Softskull
05-31-2010, 02:35 PM
I can ignore you as I do the others who are the same way.

Damn Tempus, that's hysterical. What, are we going to start burning books next?

Asinus asinorum in saecula saeculorum.

silkamilkamonico
05-31-2010, 02:44 PM
Brady was definately crippled but that begs the great question. Will McD's offense work well without a top notch QB/WR/Oline? Any year that Josh hasn't had the trifecta, his numbers have been pedestrian at best (certainly normal Patriot-like numbers)

Year Team ypg ppg
2009 Denver 341 20.4
2008 NE 365 25.6
2007 NE 411 36.8
2006 NE 335 24.1
2005 NE 352 23.7
2004 NE 354 27.3

From the numbers above, you could make an arguement that it isnt the system, it's the talent.

I don't think any offense works well without a top notch QB/WR/oline. Even the great Peyton Manning threw 6 interceptions in the game where his oline was decimated. I think the 3 are hand in hand.

QB has to play well. Previous stats, and history, has shown that.

I don't think I've ever seen a team without a great oline even play well in the playoffs, with the exception of the Bears getting to the SuperBowl. But considering Rex Grossman was on the verge of a Pro Bowl type season that year, I think it's safe to say all bets are off in that example. I've never seen a QB play well without a solid to great oline. Never.

WR is completely contingent on QB/oline play, IMHO. Of the top 5 WR's in the game currently, do any of them have a SuperBowl ring? I do not consider Reggie Wayne a top 5 WR.

The Saints have a WR corp that is completely contingent on the type of offense, and QB. But even that QB has had losing seasons in that offense when the oline didn't play well.

Bosco
05-31-2010, 02:49 PM
When it comes to the Broncos you argue everything is the D's fault because of the ppg in the second half of the season. Yet the Pats D held NYG to 17 points (which should be a win statistically speaking) and you still argue the D is at fault. Actually it was Tempus Fugit laying out that argument, not me, although I certainly don't disagree with him.

The loss is on the Pats defense because they were handed a 4 point lead with less than 3 minutes to play in the game and gave up a touchdown. Bottom line is that in crunch time the offense stepped up, the defense didn't.


Dont make excuses for injuries either. Obviously Belichick and McD felt those guys gave them the best chance to win or they wouldn't have started them! That's just a weak argument man.

A) It's the Super Bowl. Anyone who isn't dead or in a wheelchair is going to be out there.

B) Even injured starters are usually better than healthy backups, especially in the case of Tom Brady. That doesn't mean their performance won't be severely hampered.


Link? Article? Source? Posted two of them earlier in this very thread.


1. We only answered the phone. Confirmed by Adam Schefter. To date no one has been able to refute that with facts.


2. Hillis will be a bronco for a long time to come Not a lie, he simply got the chance to move him for the quarterback he originally wanted to replace Cutler with. Had that not happened Hillis would still be here.


3. We aren't interested in trading Jay Cutler for picks. And he was being truthful. By Bowlen's own admission, HE made the choice to trade Cutler.


4. No trade talks on Marshall. Then comes out that Jets backed out on Marshall in the season and post season because of the $ he wanted. Not how things happened according to this. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4441274


5. and on and on Ok?


Even an SI front page article recently listed McD among 4 coaches "known for bending the truth" LOL.

I guess SI is in the habit of lying themselves and calling innocent people liars with no reason whatsoever. That would first assume that SI was anything other than a small step above ESPN, which they're not.

Tempus Fugit
05-31-2010, 02:51 PM
Damn Tempus, that's hysterical. What, are we going to start burning books next?

Asinus asinorum in saecula saeculorum.

There's not much use in talking to people who can't be bothered with facts, logic and reason. You're just as well served to find a nice piece of concrete and start pounding your head against it. Deciding not to deal with them is nothing near the level of burning books, as I'm sure you realize. It's a simple matter of exercising the freedom of association that was so important to our founders.

Bosco
05-31-2010, 02:53 PM
Brady was definately crippled but that begs the great question. Will McD's offense work well without a top notch QB/WR/Oline? Any year that Josh hasn't had the trifecta, his numbers have been pedestrian at best (certainly normal Patriot-like numbers)

Year Team ypg ppg
2009 Denver 341 20.4
2008 NE 365 25.6
2007 NE 411 36.8
2006 NE 335 24.1
2005 NE 352 23.7
2004 NE 354 27.3

From the numbers above, you could make an arguement that it isnt the system, it's the talent.

His 2006 offense was 7th in the league despite having an injured Corey Dillion or Laurence Maroney (depending on the week) carrying the ball and no real receiving threats outside of Ben Watson.

Tempus Fugit
05-31-2010, 02:56 PM
Brady was definately crippled but that begs the great question. Will McD's offense work well without a top notch QB/WR/Oline? Any year that Josh hasn't had the trifecta, his numbers have been pedestrian at best (certainly normal Patriot-like numbers)

Year Team ypg ppg
2009 Denver 341 20.4
2008 NE 365 25.6
2007 NE 411 36.8
2006 NE 335 24.1
2005 NE 352 23.7
2004 NE 354 27.3

From the numbers above, you could make an arguement that it isnt the system, it's the talent.

The Patriots were never lower than 10th in the league in scoring under McDaniels. That 10th place ranking was in 2005, which was his first year running the offense, where he was the O.C. without the title.

I'm not sure how 10th or better every year is "pedestrian at best", but to each his own.

silkamilkamonico
05-31-2010, 02:57 PM
B) Even injured starters are usually better than healthy backups, especially in the case of Tom Brady. That doesn't mean their performance won't be severely hampered.

I used this argument in defense of people "bashing" Mcdaniels supposed offense because of that SuperBowl performance. Brady was injured, and although that's impacted, I wouldn't use it as an excuse. He should have played, becuase like you said he would still bebetter than the backup, specifically mentally. And although I think the Giants defense controlled the flow of that game and did a great job against the Patriots vaunted offense, I'm not going to ignore the fact that NE had to likely alter what they did all year because of Brady's immobiity due to injury.

Softskull
05-31-2010, 02:59 PM
I don't think any offense works well without a top notch QB/WR/oline. Even the great Peyton Manning threw 6 interceptions in the game where his oline was decimated. I think the 3 are hand in hand.

QB has to play well. Previous stats, and history, has shown that.

I don't think I've ever seen a team without a great oline even play well in the playoffs, with the exception of the Bears getting to the SuperBowl. But considering Rex Grossman was on the verge of a Pro Bowl type season that year, I think it's safe to say all bets are off in that example. I've never seen a QB play well without a solid to great oline. Never.

WR is completely contingent on QB/oline play, IMHO. Of the top 5 WR's in the game currently, do any of them have a SuperBowl ring? I do not consider Reggie Wayne a top 5 WR.

The Saints have a WR corp that is completely contingent on the type of offense, and QB. But even that QB has had losing seasons in that offense when the oline didn't play well.

Well said. Larry Fitzgerald may be top 5, but as noted, Warner was tossing him the ball that Super Bowl. Pittsburg's line was starting to wear down during their most recent SB win. I think Ben was sacked 50 times that year.

So if we dont have a top QB, or Oline (and I think that McD is trying to address these things) it may be many years before we sniff a SB.

Softskull
05-31-2010, 03:07 PM
The Patriots were never lower than 10th in the league in scoring under McDaniels. That 10th place ranking was in 2005, which was his first year running the offense, where he was the O.C. without the title.

I'm not sure how 10th or better every year is "pedestrian at best", but to each his own.

I listed the year before McDaniels started calling the plays as a reference. The Patriots were a top 10 offense before McDaniels, hence the "(certainly normal Patriot-like numbers)". They were a good offense in 02, 03 and 2004 too. I guess my arguement is that the Patriots would have been a top 10 offense regardless of whom was calling the plays.

Tempus Fugit
05-31-2010, 03:17 PM
I listed the year before McDaniels started calling the plays as a reference. The Patriots were a top 10 offense before McDaniels, hence the "(certainly normal Patriot-like numbers)". They were a good offense in 02, 03 and 2004 too. I guess my arguement is that the Patriots would have been a top 10 offense regardless of whom was calling the plays.

They were 10th in 2002 and 12th in 2003, as Antowain Smith and Troy Brown were in their declines. They brought in Dillon in 2004, and Dillon played like a man possessed. In 2005 his rapid decline had already begun, with his yards per carry falling from 4.7 all the way down to 3.5. That's why Maroney was drafted in 2006. McDaniels, as a rookie O.C. replacing one of the best offensive coordinators in the game, was able to still keep the team in the top 10 in scoring despite Dillon's precipitous decline.

Talent has a lot to do with that, and so does the combination of system and coaching. They aren't mutually exclusive, as Broncos fans learned while having one of the league's great offensive minds serving as their head coach, yet still finishing 17, 21 and 16 in scoring offense during his last 3 seasons, respectively.

Softskull
05-31-2010, 03:19 PM
It's a simple matter of exercising the freedom of association that was so important to our founders.

I'm certain that freedom of association is not included in our constitution. I don't think Madison would necessarily have ignored jhil, but that's just an opinion.

There are rules for logic. I haven't seen many here (myself included) that follow them exclusively or even closely.

Tempus Fugit
05-31-2010, 03:44 PM
I'm certain that freedom of association is not included in our constitution.

So you're neither American nor Canadian.


I don't think Madison would necessarily have ignored jhil, but that's just an opinion.

And it's one you're entitled to.



There are rules for logic. I haven't seen many here (myself included) that follow them exclusively or even closely.

When you ignore logic, facts and reason, you're pretty much useless on a message board, save to serve as a troll or cautionary tale.

Softskull
05-31-2010, 04:33 PM
So you're neither American nor Canadian.

When you ignore logic, facts and reason, you're pretty much useless on a message board, save to serve as a troll or cautionary tale.

You are correct. I'm not Canadian. As an American, freedom of association is often implied in our constitution as part of the Freedom of Speech, however not expressed anywhere in our great secular document. Does ignoring that fact make you a troll or cautionary tale?

I'm guessing I'll be joing jhil on your ignore list. Cheers.

GGMoogly
05-31-2010, 04:41 PM
So you're neither American nor Canadian.

No, he's right. I've read the Constitution bunches of times - even have a copy on my desk - and 'freedom of association' is nowhere mentioned. Today might be a good day to reacquaint yourself with it (and I DON'T mean that as a slam)


And it's one you're entitled to.

It's great to be an American!



When you ignore logic, facts and reason, you're pretty much useless on a message board, save to serve as a troll or cautionary tale.

Seriously...are you serious?! Have you looked around to see where you're posting? This is a fan forum. Logic, facts, and reason play only a small part here. In fact, they can and often have, been done away with little loss in quality. It's not like we're some socially conscious activist group effecting positive changes in the world. We're football fans with too much time and NO FOOTBALL!

Bosco
05-31-2010, 06:24 PM
I used this argument in defense of people "bashing" Mcdaniels supposed offense because of that SuperBowl performance. Brady was injured, and although that's impacted, I wouldn't use it as an excuse. He should have played, becuase like you said he would still bebetter than the backup, specifically mentally. And although I think the Giants defense controlled the flow of that game and did a great job against the Patriots vaunted offense, I'm not going to ignore the fact that NE had to likely alter what they did all year because of Brady's immobiity due to injury.

Oh there is no doubt that Giants defense did an excellent job in the Super Bowl. They were definitely an elite defense and they played like it. That said, I think the Patriots put up at least another touchdown (and win the game) if they didn't have those 3 key injuries.


They were 10th in 2002 and 12th in 2003, as Antowain Smith and Troy Brown were in their declines. They brought in Dillon in 2004, and Dillon played like a man possessed. In 2005 his rapid decline had already begun, with his yards per carry falling from 4.7 all the way down to 3.5. That's why Maroney was drafted in 2006. McDaniels, as a rookie O.C. replacing one of the best offensive coordinators in the game, was able to still keep the team in the top 10 in scoring despite Dillon's precipitous decline.

Talent has a lot to do with that, and so does the combination of system and coaching. They aren't mutually exclusive, as Broncos fans learned while having one of the league's great offensive minds serving as their head coach, yet still finishing 17, 21 and 16 in scoring offense during his last 3 seasons, respectively.

Good post.

nevcraw
05-31-2010, 06:26 PM
He wasn't "exposed" or "dispatched", but he was pretty limited by injuries to Brady and two of his linemen. Even then, his offense gave them a 14-10 lead with just over two minutes to play and it took a dropped interception and one of the biggest fluke plays in NFL history to get the Giants a win.
http://www.nfl.com/history/randf/records/team/scoring[/


A average team at best limited them by beating them up. Yes dispatched - 274 total yards, 5 sacks, 40 rushing yards - That was great!

injuries - hah.. The infamous shoulder injury that has been on the Pats injury report for a gazillion years or the hurted ankle that he was trapesing on all over Soho w/ then GF Giselle the week after the AFC championship?

The vaunted MCD spread has not has been nearly as effective in NE and certainly not in Denver since before that SB--- so exposed is quite possible.




http://www.nfl.com/history/randf/records/team/scoring


There was no such record heading for greatest.. but your little smug response was cute.

Lonestar
05-31-2010, 06:42 PM
Guess being chased by Gissle and the NYG is supposed to be in the same catogory.

Way to be rational.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

nevcraw
05-31-2010, 06:48 PM
Guess being chased by Gissle and the NYG is supposed to be in the same catogory.


Way to be rational.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

what --- you want some too, old man? :laugh:

Bosco
05-31-2010, 06:57 PM
A average team at best limited them by beating them up. Average teams don't make it to the Super Bowl, especially in one of the toughest divisions in football.


Yes dispatched - 274 total yards, 5 sacks, 40 rushing yards - That was great! And you don't think that, especially the rushing yards and 5 sacks, had anything to do with the two injured starters on their line?

Boy, have I got a bridge to sell you.


injuries - hah.. The infamous shoulder injury that has been on the Pats injury report for a gazillion years or the hurted ankle that he was trapesing on all over Soho w/ then GF Giselle the week after the AFC championship? See post #95.


The vaunted MCD spread has not has been nearly as effective in NE and certainly not in Denver since before that SB--- so exposed is quite possible. That's because they haven't run it since the Super Bowl. In 2005 and 2006 they were running the grind it out Earhart-Perkins offense that Weis had installed, but with McD's tweaks. They brought out the spread in 2007 when Welker and Moss came to town and had great success. When Brady got hurt in 2008 they shifted to more of a West Coast Offense style to fit Cassel's skillset.


There was no such record heading for greatest.. but your little smug response was cute. Sorry. I figured being the #1 scoring offense in league history pretty much covered that.

elsid13
05-31-2010, 07:35 PM
What the SB shows that McDaniels is not very flexible when things don't work. He seems to display a unwillingness to adapt when opponents defense don't cooperate with his game plan.

Bosco
05-31-2010, 07:43 PM
What the SB shows that McDaniels is not very flexible when things don't work. He seems to display a unwillingness to adapt when opponents defense don't cooperate with his game plan.

Sorry that's not even close to true. Not only is it nearly impossible to gameplan around two injured linemen and a quarterback, much less in the very last game of the season, but more than one defensive coordinator has come out and said how hard it is to prepare for a McD's offense.

elsid13
05-31-2010, 07:55 PM
Sorry that's not even close to true. Not only is it nearly impossible to gameplan around two injured linemen and a quarterback, much less in the very last game of the season, but more than one defensive coordinator has come out and said how hard it is to prepare for a McD's offense.


You not getting the point that I am making. It is possible to adapt your game plan when you know your weakness and injuries, especial with two weeks to prepare. Mcdaniels refuses to adapt his game plan on the field. He failed to during the SB and he struggle last season when DC threw him a curve ball.

Lonestar
05-31-2010, 08:41 PM
Sorry that's not even close to true. Not only is it nearly impossible to gameplan around two injured linemen and a quarterback, much less in the very last game of the season, but more than one defensive coordinator has come out and said how hard it is to prepare for a McD's offense.

Sorry you will never change the haters over to logical thinkers.

But good solid post for those that have an open mind.

:salute:
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Softskull
05-31-2010, 09:29 PM
Sorry you will never change the haters over to logical thinkers.

But good solid post for those that have an open mind.

:salute:
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Please, two guys were on the Pats injury report, Brady and Gaffney.

Bosco
05-31-2010, 09:42 PM
Mcdaniels refuses to adapt his game plan on the field. He failed to during the SB and he struggle last season when DC threw him a curve ball.

How? I want specific and detailed explanations too.

silkamilkamonico
05-31-2010, 10:25 PM
You not getting the point that I am making. It is possible to adapt your game plan when you know your weakness and injuries, especial with two weeks to prepare. Mcdaniels refuses to adapt his game plan on the field. He failed to during the SB and he struggle last season when DC threw him a curve ball.

How so? Because he had to change the offense on what they were doing all year because of a gimpy Tom Brady? I would also like to see examples of how he refused to change on the field as well this year.

Tempus Fugit
05-31-2010, 10:31 PM
You not getting the point that I am making. It is possible to adapt your game plan when you know your weakness and injuries, especial with two weeks to prepare. Mcdaniels refuses to adapt his game plan on the field. He failed to during the SB and he struggle last season when DC threw him a curve ball.

And you base your assertions upon what facts?

Softskull
05-31-2010, 11:11 PM
Generally game plan flaws will show themselves in 3rd and 4th down percentages and red zone. I know players need to execute, but it's an easy way to see how a offensive play callling is working. Looking at McD's last two years of losses, the numbers aren't spectacular.

2008 3rd % 4th% Red
Mia 4/15 2/3 1/3
SD 5/15 0/1 1/3
Ind 8/14 0/1 1/4
NYJ 4/14 2/3 3/4
Pitt 1/13 2/2 1/4
Overall .31 .60 .39

2009 3rd % 4th% Red
Bal 3/13 1/1 1/1
Pit 5/14 0/0 0/0
Was 5/12 0/2 0/1
SD 2/9 0/3 0/4
Ind 6/17 0/3 2/4
Oak 4/15 1/1 1/4
Phi 5/15 1/1 3/4
KC 7/15 1/1 3/4
Overall .33 .33 .45

Now this doesn't necessarily mean McD doesnt adapt, you can only do so much with the talent you have, but it is an indicator he couldn't find solutions to help the team win, especially in 2008 with the eighth ranked offense.

Tempus Fugit
05-31-2010, 11:51 PM
Generally game plan flaws will show themselves in 3rd and 4th down percentages and red zone. I know players need to execute, but it's an easy way to see how a offensive play callling is working. Looking at McD's last two years of losses, the numbers aren't spectacular.

2008 3rd % 4th% Red
Mia 4/15 2/3 1/3
SD 5/15 0/1 1/3
Ind 8/14 0/1 1/4
NYJ 4/14 2/3 3/4
Pitt 1/13 2/2 1/4
Overall .31 .16 .39

2009 3rd % 4th% Red
Bal 3/13 1/1 1/1
Pit 5/14 0/0 0/0
Was 5/12 0/2 0/1
SD 2/9 0/3 0/4
Ind 6/17 0/3 2/4
Oak 4/15 1/1 1/4
Phi 5/15 1/1 3/4
KC 7/15 1/1 3/4
Overall .33 .25 .45

Now this doesn't necessarily mean McD doesnt adapt, you can only do so much with the talent you have, but it is an indicator he couldn't find solutions to help the team win, especially in 2008 with the eighth ranked offense.

Your trying to forge a causal link that's more likely to be valid and worth noting when reversed than when used in the manner you have chosen.

claymore
06-01-2010, 07:50 AM
Are you referring to the first half or second half, when you refer to "statistically speaking"?

Hell, for all we know, McD was running the D in the beginning, then handed it off to Nolan, only to Fail.

Are you on drugs?

Softskull
06-01-2010, 09:03 AM
Your trying to forge a causal link that's more likely to be valid and worth noting when reversed than when used in the manner you have chosen.

It would be easier to show all the data if I could figure out how to properly upload spreadsheets without them loosing format. Any advice?

And I wasn't really going for cause and effect, as I noted players have to play and there a far too many variables, it a correlation for your viewing pleasure. However, those three areas are where play callers make their money. Y'all want hard facts that Coach McDaniels can’t adjust during the game. That would be hard to prove, but statistically the team was failing in areas that can be attributed to play calling.

If I pointed out the Indy game where we consistently failed on 3-1 and 4-1 to run up the middle, would that be a failure in play calling? We hadn't been very good at it all season. It's speculative, but I would say yes.

Dean
06-02-2010, 06:27 AM
This offers an insight into the firing.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_15205066



Wednesday, June 02, 2010
By Mike Klis
The Denver Post
Posted: 06/02/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT


Denver Post NFL reporter Mike Klis posts his Broncos Mailbag in the first week of each month during the offseason.
...

Has McDaniels said publically why Mike Nolan was fired? But even more to the point, why Don Martindale was given the defensive coordinator position? Did McDaniels see something special with Wink?
--Mark, Honolulu

As I was told by several players, the beginning of the end for Nolan was the

Eddie Royal will need to beat more than the Steelers' punter. He figures to be among the Broncos top receivers. (Cyrus McCrimmon, The Denver Post)Indianapolis Colts' game — the 13th of the season. To review, the Broncos carried an 8-4 record into that game, having won their last two. McDaniels won the coin toss, deferred, and then Peyton Manning put the Colts up 21-0 after three possessions.

During that 21-0 blitzkrieg, Nolan called some plays — particularly the run-blitz — that McDaniels didn't like. The hostile way McDaniels handled that communication breakdown was not well-received by Nolan. A month and four consecutive losses later, Nolan and McDaniels mutually agreed to part ways, without much comment.

In Martindale, McDaniels figures to have a more obedient defensive coordinator without losing much aggressiveness. Martindale's background, after all, is rooted in the Buddy-Rex-Rob Ryan defensive school of attack, attack, attack.

Far more important than the switch of defensive coordinators, however, is the Broncos' new set of defensive linemen. The front three additions of nose tackle Jamal Williams and five-technique defensive ends Justin Bannan and Jarvis Green is why Denver's D this season should be improved from the way it finished in 2009.

All contents Copyright 2010 The Denver Post or other copyright holders. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed for any commercial purpose.

claymore
06-02-2010, 07:08 AM
Sorry that's not even close to true. Not only is it nearly impossible to gameplan around two injured linemen and a quarterback, much less in the very last game of the season, but more than one defensive coordinator has come out and said how hard it is to prepare for a McD's offense.

Bwahahahahahahahahhaaha!!!! :lol: Oh..... Lolololololoololololol!!!!! 20th in scoring!!! 22nd in 3rd down completions..... Bwahahahahah!!!!

Mike
06-02-2010, 07:32 AM
Bwahahahahahahahahhaaha!!!! :lol: Oh..... Lolololololoololololol!!!!! 20th in scoring!!! 22nd in 3rd down completions..... Bwahahahahah!!!!

Bwahhaahaa...first year in new system....injured o-line...bwaaahaahaa. Oh.

claymore
06-02-2010, 07:40 AM
Bwahhaahaa...first year in new system....injured o-line...bwaaahaahaa. Oh.
So we drafted a WR with a broken foot, and a QB. :elefant: We should be alot better.

Mike
06-02-2010, 07:56 AM
So we drafted a WR with a broken foot, and a QB. :elefant: We should be alot better.

Dance elephant, dance.

TXBRONC
06-02-2010, 08:19 AM
Dance elephant, dance.

As Mike squeezes off the trigger of his six shooter.

Lonestar
06-02-2010, 08:44 AM
This offers an insight into the firing.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_15205066



Wednesday, June 02, 2010
By Mike Klis
The Denver Post
Posted: 06/02/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT



Has McDaniels said publically why Mike Nolan was fired? But even more to the point, why Don Martindale was given the defensive coordinator position? Did McDaniels see something special with Wink?
--Mark, Honolulu

As I was told by several players, the beginning of the end for Nolan was the

Indianapolis Colts' game — the 13th of the season. To review, the Broncos carried an 8-4 record into that game, having won their last two. McDaniels won the coin toss, deferred, and then Peyton Manning put the Colts up 21-0 after three possessions.

During that 21-0 blitzkrieg, Nolan called some plays — particularly the run-blitz — that McDaniels didn't like. The hostile way McDaniels handled that communication breakdown was not well-received by Nolan. A month and four consecutive losses later, Nolan and McDaniels mutually agreed to part ways, without much comment.

In Martindale, McDaniels figures to have a more obedient defensive coordinator without losing much aggressiveness. Martindale's background, after all, is rooted in the Buddy-Rex-Rob Ryan defensive school of attack, attack, attack.

Far more important than the switch of defensive coordinators, however, is the Broncos' new set of defensive linemen. The front three additions of nose tackle Jamal Williams and five-technique defensive ends Justin Bannan and Jarvis Green is why Denver's D this season should be improved from the way it finished in 2009.


If nolan did indeed throw up RUN blitz while on the passing plays instead of pass blitz.

Then he might be justified in questioning this judgement.

If Wink is indeed more
Agressive then we should be much improved.

Let's hope having 3 quality NEW LOS players perhaps blitzing EVERY play may not be required. If the dl can take the run away that will be huge.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Bosco
06-02-2010, 01:08 PM
So we drafted a WR with a broken foot Well shit. We might as well just put him on IR now.


If nolan did indeed throw up RUN blitz while on the passing plays instead of pass blitz.

Then he might be justified in questioning this judgement.

If Wink is indeed more
Agressive then we should be much improved.

Let's hope having 3 quality NEW LOS players perhaps blitzing EVERY play may not be required. If the dl can take the run away that will be huge.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

No doubt. That defensive play calling early in the Colts game was atrocious and I remember the cameras showing Josh McDaniels absolutely going ballistic into his headset, which was almost certainly directed at Nolan.

TXBRONC
06-02-2010, 01:25 PM
Well shit. We might as well just put him on IR now.



No doubt. That defensive play calling early in the Colts game was atrocious and I remember the cameras showing Josh McDaniels absolutely going ballistic into his headset, which was almost certainly directed at Nolan.

I guess you missed it that he also was pissed at the offense that couldn't stay on the field to save it's life. Typical.

Bosco
06-02-2010, 01:54 PM
I guess missed it It happened.


that he also was pissed at the offense that couldn't stay on the field to save it's life. Typical.

I don't think he had any problem getting in the offense's face either.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UTdw3YRargM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UTdw3YRargM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Dean
06-02-2010, 05:14 PM
If nolan did indeed throw up RUN blitz while on the passing plays instead of pass blitz.

Then he might be justified in questioning this judgement.

If Wink is indeed more
Agressive then we should be much improved.

Let's hope having 3 quality NEW LOS players perhaps blitzing EVERY play may not be required. If the dl can take the run away that will be huge.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

If the down and distance indicates that the opponent has a high percentage of runs in the past you call a run blitz. Unless you are stealing signals like the Pats, you will not be 100% correct in your calls. However, that is beside the point. It was stated by players that McKids reaction toward him is what trigggered Nolan's wish to get the hell out of Denver. Often it is not what is said but how it is said.

Think back to Josh's reaction recorded on TV to the special teams coordinator. It was not him that shanked the punt but he was publicly humiliated. IMO that is not how you effectively lead and work with people.

I do hope that getting actual 3-4 D-linemen can make a significant improvement even with a rookie D coordinator.

Lonestar
06-02-2010, 05:45 PM
If the down and distance indicates that the opponent has a high percentage of runs in the past you call a run blitz. Unless you are stealing signals like the Pats, you will not be 100% correct in your calls. However, that is beside the point. It was stated by players that McKids reaction toward him is what trigggered Nolan's wish to get the hell out of Denver. Often it is not what is said but how it is said.

Think back to Josh's reaction recorded on TV to the special teams coordinator. It was not him that shanked the punt but he was publicly humiliated. IMO that is not how you effectively lead and work with people.

I do hope that getting actual 3-4 D-linemen can make a significant improvement even with a rookie D coordinator.

While I agree in principle, the old adage "different strokes for different folks may apply here."

It may work for him and many players MAY respect him for the up front in the face style.

We know that divas do not respond well in this style but then he is not recruiting Divas only unloading them for Draft choices.

Until a real player leaves and rips the guy then I'll worry about his getting in some ones grille when the FUBAR something.

So far IMHO we have only gained TEAM players and barfed up Divas (save perhaps Hillis and Leach). That works for me.



I know that was not your style Coach and I'm sure you had some moments in your rookie Coaching days you were not proud of either.

I also suspect IF a coach did not follow your directions YOU told him about it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I know that many hate Josh and it was always BE Joshes fault, regardless of the facts.

Dean
06-02-2010, 08:09 PM
While I agree in principle, the old adage "different strokes for different folks may apply here."

It may work for him and many players MAY respect him for the up front in the face style.

. . .and then again many players and coaches MAY NOT respect that kind of treatment. Let me ask you the question. Would you want that kind of PUBLIC disrespect? These outbursts are in front of the team, players, family, fans, and national TV audience.


We know that divas do not respond well in this style but then he is not recruiting Divas only unloading them for Draft choices.

Until a real player leaves and rips the guy then I'll worry about his getting in some ones grille when the FUBAR something.

So far IMHO we have only gained TEAM players and barfed up Divas (save perhaps Hillis and Leach). That works for me.


Team players without talent are like Rudy at Notre Dame- great people but they won't win it for you.



I know that was not your style Coach and I'm sure you had some moments in your rookie Coaching days you were not proud of either.

I also suspect IF a coach did not follow your directions YOU told him about it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I have reamed out hudreds of players but not in public at the top of my voice in from of those they love. As for coaches, to take them to task in front of the team castrates their effectiveness from that point on. The players just assume that he doesn't know what he is doing.


I know that many hate Josh and it was always BE Joshes fault, regardless of the facts.

What facts? Until he wins more than he loses he has proven absolutely nothing. That is not hate. That is the nature of coaching. You are hired to win. If you don't, someone else will be hired to win. There is no grace period or give him a pass because he tried.

All coaches try to win. Some have it figured out, some are figuring it out, and some never will. This year will give us an idea where Josh fits and it will happen regardless of who it for him or against him.

Tempus Fugit
06-02-2010, 08:18 PM
. . .and then again many players and coaches MAY NOT respect that kind of treatment. Let me ask you the question. Would you want that kind of PUBLIC disrespect? These outbursts are in front of the team, players, family, fans, and national TV audience.

I have reamed out hudreds of players but not in public at the top of my voice in from of those they love. As for coaches, to take them to task in front of the team castrates their effectiveness from that point on. The players just assume that he doesn't know what he is doing.

Given the success of such coaches as Parcells and Cowher, just to name to obvious recent examples, as well as personal experiences on multiple levels, I can say that I strongly disagree with your take.

Dean
06-02-2010, 08:40 PM
Given the success of such coaches as Parcells and Cowher, just to name to obvious recent examples, as well as personal experiences on multiple levels, I can say that I strongly disagree with your take.

I'm sorry I must have missed it. Please give me specific examples of Parcells and Cowher screaming during a game at their coordinators.

Softskull
06-02-2010, 08:42 PM
Given the success of such coaches as Parcells and Cowher, just to name to obvious recent examples, as well as personal experiences on multiple levels, I can say that I strongly disagree with your take.

Stalin and Pol Pot were successful with these methods and they would strongly disagree with Dean too. Negative reinforcement is extremely effective. You can beat a dog to your will, but that dog will only be a tool. Dean was referencing a classic example of managing personnel 101.

Tempus Fugit
06-02-2010, 08:53 PM
I'm sorry I must have missed it. Please give me specific examples of Parcells and Cowher screaming during a game at their coordinators.

Ok, now you're just yanking my chain.

Bosco
06-02-2010, 08:55 PM
Think back to Josh's reaction recorded on TV to the special teams coordinator. It was not him that shanked the punt but he was publicly humiliated. IMO that is not how you effectively lead and work with people.

IIRC didn't our special teams have 3 "running into the punter" penalties on the same drive or something stupid like that? I seem to remember Josh reaming out Mike Priefer after the 2nd one, and after the 3rd one he just gave Mike a blood curdling death stare.

Tempus Fugit
06-02-2010, 08:55 PM
Stalin and Pol Pot were successful with these methods and they would strongly disagree with Dean too. Negative reinforcement is extremely effective. You can beat a dog to your will, but that dog will only be a tool. Dean was referencing a classic example of managing personnel 101.

No, Dean was putting forth one style of management and essentially declaring that an opposing style has never worked and never does. He was wrong. From Lombardi and before, to the coaches of today, more than one style of coaching has been used successfully, and that includes the coaches who chew out players/subordinates right there on the field.

Dean
06-02-2010, 08:57 PM
Ok, now you're just yanking my chain.

They both yelled at players but I don't remember them attacking a coordinator. Their is no chain involved. You made the assertion- don't be evasive.

Bosco
06-02-2010, 09:04 PM
No, Dean was putting forth one style of management and essentially declaring that an opposing style has never worked and never does. He was wrong. From Lombardi and before, to the coaches of today, more than one style of coaching has been used successfully, and that includes the coaches who chew out players/subordinates right there on the field.

I saw a quote not too long ago by someone who was so surprised that McDaniels and Belichick would chew Tom Brady a new ass in front of the whole team if he screwed up and how it sent a message that everyone was accountable.

Seems to have worked well for them. I'm sure it'll work just as well here now that we've weeded out all the crybabies (see: Cutler, Jay; Scheffler, Tony) who needed to be handled with kid's gloves.

Tempus Fugit
06-02-2010, 09:07 PM
They both yelled at players but I don't remember them attacking a coordinator. Their is no chain involved. You made the assertion- don't be evasive.

I wasn't being evasive. I'm stunned that someone would even question this, particularly regarding Parcells, since his behavior has been in the news for decades, has been written about in books, and has been seen enough during press conferences that I'd have thought only those in third-world countries had missed those. Hell, he even used one coach as the designated "whipping boy". Here's an excerpt from Education Of A Coach:


Parcells became furious when Belichick, his defensive assistant, overrules him andcalls a blitz that
Parcells opposes. When the blitz works, Parcells lets go. He yells at Belichik over an open microphone,
shocking everyone who hears it. "You're a genius -everyone knows it, a goddamned genius. But, that's
why you failed as a head coach - that's why you'll never be a head coach --- some genius."

http://www.ebooknetworking.net/books_detail-B000LP64NQ.html

Here's an ESPN observation:


In the four seasons Parcells coached the Cowboys, there was plenty of yelling, screaming and coaching going on. Tight end Jason Witten said he remembers all the fights Parcells and Payton got into.

http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/columns/story?columnist=watkins_calvin&id=4754403

None of this stuff is a secret.

Softskull
06-02-2010, 09:11 PM
No, Dean was putting forth one style of management and essentially declaring that an opposing style has never worked and never does. He was wrong. From Lombardi and before, to the coaches of today, more than one style of coaching has been used successfully, and that includes the coaches who chew out players/subordinates right there on the field.

What a surprise. Weren't you the one so bent on facts?

Here's what Dean said:

". . .and then again many players and coaches MAY NOT respect that kind of treatment. Let me ask you the question. Would you want that kind of PUBLIC disrespect? These outbursts are in front of the team, players, family, fans, and national TV audience."

You can stick bamboo under their fingernails for motivation. As Dean said, players and coaches MAY NOT respect that kind of treatment.

Tempus Fugit
06-02-2010, 09:14 PM
What a surprise. Weren't you the one so bent on facts?

Here's what Dean said:

". . .and then again many players and coaches MAY NOT respect that kind of treatment. Let me ask you the question. Would you want that kind of PUBLIC disrespect? These outbursts are in front of the team, players, family, fans, and national TV audience."

You can stick bamboo under their fingernails for motivation. As Dean said, players and coaches MAY NOT respect that kind of treatment.

Given this portion of what Dean posted and you conveniently left out:


to take them to task in front of the team castrates their effectiveness from that point on. The players just assume that he doesn't know what he is doing.

My earlier post stands up just fine........

Dean
06-02-2010, 09:19 PM
I appreciate the information. I was unaware of it. I still believe that action merely drives an unnecessary wedge between the head coach and the assistant. I would have to admit that if Bell changed Parcell's call their was justification.

Softskull
06-02-2010, 09:27 PM
Given this portion of what Dean posted and you conveniently left out:

Dean was answering a question posted to him about his personal coaching style. Your post of "opposing style has never worked and never does" is dramatic and insincere.

How many Super Bowls did Parcells win after humiliating BB for making the right call?

Softskull
06-02-2010, 09:29 PM
I appreciate the information. I was unaware of it. I still believe that action merely drives an unnecessary wedge between the head coach and the assistant. I would have to admit that if Bell changed Parcell's call their was justification.

Parcells was bitter. BB left the next year and has done fine without the old man.

Tempus Fugit
06-02-2010, 09:31 PM
Dean was answering a question posted to him about his personal coaching style. Your post of "opposing style has never worked and never does" is dramatic and insincere.

How many Super Bowls did Parcells win after humiliating BB for making the right call?

Talk about "dramatic and insincere"..... :lol:

You think Parcells would have more Super Bowl victories if he'd only held his tongue that one time with Belichick?

Thanks for the comedy.

Tempus Fugit
06-02-2010, 09:35 PM
I appreciate the information. I was unaware of it. I still believe that action merely drives an unnecessary wedge between the head coach and the assistant. I would have to admit that if Bell changed Parcell's call their was justification.

It's a matter of different coaching styles, nothing more. What you feel works for you will not work for everyone. Lombardi could be a son of a bitch, but his players would have run through walls for him. Going back to Parcells, remember him calling Terry Glenn "she" in a press conference?

Lonestar
06-02-2010, 10:49 PM
. . .and then again many players and coaches MAY NOT respect that kind of treatment. Let me ask you the question. Would you want that kind of PUBLIC disrespect? These outbursts are in front of the team, players, family, fans, and national TV audience.

If I did not do my job I may not like it, but would not shrink my sack up because of it. I guess I'm just old school. Make a stupid mistake EXPECT to have the rath of the coach on your shoulders.

It is called INcentive do your job and well you get praise instead of getting chewed out.





Team players without talent are like Rudy at Notre Dame- great people but they won't win it for you.

Just where did ANYONE say that he was recruiting, signing or drafting players with no talent .


Because you are a TEAM players does not cut the talent out of you it just means you are in the game for more than ONES self. (non Diva for those that have not got the drift.)



I have reamed out hudreds of players but not in public at the top of my voice in from of those they love. As for coaches, to take them to task in front of the team castrates their effectiveness from that point on. The players just assume that he doesn't know what he is doing.

So he did it less privately than you not any better or worse you still reamed them out. Different strokes from different Folks.




What facts? Until he wins more than he loses he has proven absolutely nothing. That is not hate. That is the nature of coaching. You are hired to win. If you don't, someone else will be hired to win. There is no grace period or give him a pass because he tried.

frankly I'll think considering all of the changes anyone logically thinking he would have a stellar year with the team well goes without saying thinking with your heart and not your brain.


All coaches try to win. Some have it figured out, some are figuring it out, and some never will. This year will give us an idea where Josh fits and it will happen regardless of who it for him or against him.


yep that is the whole reason you coach from HS up to win and I think yes I THINK he is on the correct path building a TEAM instead of 3-4 players that are uber talented and IF one has a bad day we are screwed.

Brady was not a super star when they drafted him or frankly someone EVERY team IN front of them would have scooped him up.

A good College player that was developed in a TEAM atmosphere turned into a GREAT potentially a HOF player if he has a few more good years.

Coach I respect you but you have to remember that coaching HS kids from WY is a tad different than the NFl. You know the X's and O's. and perhaps you are correct about treating people the way you want to be treated see my SIG. But this is his style and I suspect that PAt and Joe knew this when they brought him in.

They wanted a firey, motivated super smart guy that knew Football inside and out that seems to be the guy they got.


As I have said in many of my posts


I'm willing to give him a chance to prove what Pat and Josh saw in him.


I lived with mikey for almost a decade after the super blows and his antics on lousy personnel choices a great OC but beyond lousy GM. Glad he is gone

Softskull
06-02-2010, 10:50 PM
Talk about "dramatic and insincere"..... :lol:

You think Parcells would have more Super Bowl victories if he'd only held his tongue that one time with Belichick?

Thanks for the comedy.

Yeah, actually Parcells only chance to win was with Belichick.

Parcells never won a super bowl, championship, a wild card game or even won his division without Belichick.

Parcells life with Belichick:

NYG 1983 5th in NFC East -
NYG 1984 2nd in NFC East Lost NFC Divisional Game.
NYG 1985 2nd in NFC East Lost NFC Divisional Game.
NYG 1985 2nd in NFC East Lost NFC Divisional Game.
NYG 1986 1st in NFC East Super Bowl XXI Champions.
NYG 1987 5th in NFC East -
NYG 1988 2nd in NFC East -
NYG 1989 1st in NFC East Lost NFC Divisional Game.
NYG 1990 1st in NFC East Super Bowl XXV Champions.
NE 1996 1st in AFC East Lost Super Bowl XXXI.
NYJ 1997 3rd in AFC East -
NYJ 1998 1st in AFC East Lost AFC Championship Game.
NYJ 1999 4th in AFC East -

Life without Belichick
NE 1993 4th in AFC East -
NE 1994 2nd in AFC East Lost AFC Wild-Card Game.
NE 1995 4th in AFC East -
DAL 2003 2nd in NFC East Lost NFC Wild-Card Game.
DAL 2004 3rd in NFC East -
DAL 2005 3rd in NFC East -
DAL 2006 2nd in NFC East Lost NFC Wild-Card Game.


Belichick was later handpicked by Parcells to run the Jets after Parcells retired. Belichick accepted then resigned at the podium. Belichick's former players say they believe it was more about Parcells than the Patriots' money. "Perhaps there is the opportunity to get out from the shadow of Parcells," said ex-Giant Harry Carson. "I don't think it's about the Patriots' situation. “

Lonestar
06-02-2010, 11:00 PM
Yeah, actually Parcells only chance to win was with Belichick.

Parcells never won a super bowl, championship, a wild card game or even won his division without Belichick.

Parcells life with Belichick:

NYG 1983 5th in NFC East -
NYG 1984 2nd in NFC East Lost NFC Divisional Game.
NYG 1985 2nd in NFC East Lost NFC Divisional Game.
NYG 1985 2nd in NFC East Lost NFC Divisional Game.
NYG 1986 1st in NFC East Super Bowl XXI Champions.
NYG 1987 5th in NFC East -
NYG 1988 2nd in NFC East -
NYG 1989 1st in NFC East Lost NFC Divisional Game.
NYG 1990 1st in NFC East Super Bowl XXV Champions.
NE 1996 1st in AFC East Lost Super Bowl XXXI.
NYJ 1997 3rd in AFC East -
NYJ 1998 1st in AFC East Lost AFC Championship Game.
NYJ 1999 4th in AFC East -

Life without Belichick
NE 1993 4th in AFC East -
NE 1994 2nd in AFC East Lost AFC Wild-Card Game.
NE 1995 4th in AFC East -
DAL 2003 2nd in NFC East Lost NFC Wild-Card Game.
DAL 2004 3rd in NFC East -
DAL 2005 3rd in NFC East -
DAL 2006 2nd in NFC East Lost NFC Wild-Card Game.


Belichick was later handpicked by Parcells to run the Jets after Parcells retired. Belichick accepted then resigned at the podium. Belichick's former players say they believe it was more about Parcells than the Patriots' money. "Perhaps there is the opportunity to get out from the shadow of Parcells," said ex-Giant Harry Carson. "I don't think it's about the Patriots' situation. “


thanks for the rundown. :salute:

Tempus Fugit
06-02-2010, 11:20 PM
Yeah, actually Parcells only chance to win was with Belichick.

Parcells never won a super bowl, championship, a wild card game or even won his division without Belichick.

Parcells life with Belichick:

NYG 1983 5th in NFC East -
NYG 1984 2nd in NFC East Lost NFC Divisional Game.
NYG 1985 2nd in NFC East Lost NFC Divisional Game.
NYG 1985 2nd in NFC East Lost NFC Divisional Game.
NYG 1986 1st in NFC East Super Bowl XXI Champions.
NYG 1987 5th in NFC East -
NYG 1988 2nd in NFC East -
NYG 1989 1st in NFC East Lost NFC Divisional Game.
NYG 1990 1st in NFC East Super Bowl XXV Champions.
NE 1996 1st in AFC East Lost Super Bowl XXXI.
NYJ 1997 3rd in AFC East -
NYJ 1998 1st in AFC East Lost AFC Championship Game.
NYJ 1999 4th in AFC East -

Life without Belichick
NE 1993 4th in AFC East -
NE 1994 2nd in AFC East Lost AFC Wild-Card Game.
NE 1995 4th in AFC East -
DAL 2003 2nd in NFC East Lost NFC Wild-Card Game.
DAL 2004 3rd in NFC East -
DAL 2005 3rd in NFC East -
DAL 2006 2nd in NFC East Lost NFC Wild-Card Game.


Belichick was later handpicked by Parcells to run the Jets after Parcells retired. Belichick accepted then resigned at the podium. Belichick's former players say they believe it was more about Parcells than the Patriots' money. "Perhaps there is the opportunity to get out from the shadow of Parcells," said ex-Giant Harry Carson. "I don't think it's about the Patriots' situation. “

While that's probably a very fine breakdown, it's irrelevant to the topic and to the question I posed.