PDA

View Full Version : Why Is Bowlen So Loyal To Shanahan?



Ziggy
06-07-2008, 01:20 AM
Why Is Bowlen So Loyal To Shanahan?

Since John Elway’s retirement, the Broncos have won exactly 1 playoff game in 9 seasons. In the 2007 season, they won less than half of the games they played. They have made endless personnel mistakes, and paid big money contracts to players who seemed to contribute more to the team’s failures than successes. Dale Carter, Darrel Gardner, Simeon Rice, Javon Walker, Jimmy Kennedy, and others have made many wonder if Mike Shanahan and his staff have a clue about how to evaluate NFL veteran talent. 24 of the 34 players drafted by Denver between 2001-2004 no longer play in the NFL. Only 2 of the 10 that are left in the NFL are still with the team, making many wonder if Mike Shanahan and his staff have a clue about how to evaluate college talent. Why in the world would Pat Bowlen keep paying Mike Shanahan millions of dollars to run this organization? Anyone? Anyone? I’m going to attempt to answer this question with some facts, statistics, and a question.

Free agents and draft picks in the NFL are gambles. Free agents and rookies are given signing bonuses and a contract. Signing bonuses are guaranteed, and a portion of the contracts are usually also guaranteed. When players get cut and have remaining guaranteed money owed to them, that money counts against the team’s cap. We refer to this money as ‘dead cap space’. Over the last 4 years, NFL teams have averaged just under 10 million dollars in dead cap space. Mike Shanahan is a gambler. For that reason alone, the Broncos are going to be among the leaders in dead cap space. He's had his successes and failures. Football fans normally tend to focus on the failures when a team is struggling. Around the Denver area recently, we hear a lot of talk about free agent pickups like Dale Carter, Darryl Gardner, Simeon Rice, Travis Henry, Michael Dean Perry, and others. Some of the signings you won’t hear about as much these days are players like Ed Mccaffery, Mark Schlereth, Brian Habib, John Lynch, Howard Griffith, Bill Romanowski, Alfred Williams, Neil Smith, and others. Shanahan normally comes out on the winning end of trades. Gerard Warren to the Raiders for just a 5th round pick was arguably a poor trade, but moving Clinton Portis to Washington for Champ Bailey and a 2nd round pick was a stroke of brilliance. Portis has struggled continually with injuries while Bailey has become a perennial pro bowler and future hall of famer. Netting a 3rd and 4th round pick for Ashley Lelie was another masterpiece. If we choose to focus on the negative personnel moves made by Shanahan and his staff over the years, we certainly have room to complain. For the glass half full type of fans, there’s plenty to be happy about.

Personnel moves aside, let’s take a look at the big picture. When I asked myself what I really want out of my football team as a fan, I came up with 2 things…… 1) Having a competitive team, and 2) Winning championships. Let’s take a look at how Shanahan has done in these two areas.

Competitiveness:

I’ve compiled a chart of the 32 teams’ records since Shanahan was hired in Denver.


1 New England Patriots 135-73 0.649
2 Green Bay Packers 134-74 0.644
3 Denver Broncos 130-78 0.625
4 Pittsburgh Steelers 127-80-1 0.611
5 Indianapolis Colts 126-82 0.606
6 Philadelphia Eagles 117-90-1 0.563
7 Kansas City Chiefs 115-93 0.553
8 Tennessee Titans 114-94 0.548
9 Jacksonville Jaguars 113-95 0.543
9 Minnesota Vikings 113-95 0.543
9 Seattle Seahawks 113-95 0.543
12 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 109-99 0.524
13 Dallas Cowboys 108-100 0.519
14 Miami Dolphins 106-102 0.509
15 San Francisco 49'ers 105-103 0.505
16 New York Giants 104-103-1 0.499
17 St. Louis Cardinals 103-105 0.495
18 Cle/Baltimore Ravens 101-106-1 0.486
19 Buffalo Bills 100-108 0.481
20 San Diego Chargers 99-109 0.476
21 Washington Redskins 97-110-1 0.466
22 Carolina Panthers 97-111 0.466
23 Chicago Bears 95-113 0.457
23 New York Jets 95-113 0.457
25 Atlanta Falcons 94-114 0.452
26 New Orleans Saints 87-121 0.418
26 Oakland Raiders 87-121 0.418
28 Cincinnati Bengals 83-125 0.399
29 Detroit Lions 77-131 0.371
30 Arizona Cardinals 73-134-1 0.351
31 Cleveland Browns 50-94 0.347
32 Houston Texans 32-64 0.333


As you can see above, the Broncos have the 3rd best record in the NFL during Shanahan’s tenure. Their average record per season is 10-6.

Let’s take a look at the second category: Winning Championships. Shanahan and the Broncos have won 2 during his time here in Denver. That ranks second, bested only by the New England Patriots (3). 8 other teams have won a single Super Bowl, 22 teams have not won any, and half of the teams in the NFL have had a losing record between 1995-2008. The numbers are what they are, and as promised I’ll leave you with a question to help answer my original question.

If the current 32 owners were given an opportunity to hire a coach/gm for the next 13 years, and were guaranteed to have an average record of 10-6 and win 2 Super Bowls during that span, how many do you think would say no?

underrated29
06-07-2008, 01:53 AM
nice piece.

Its also fun to point out that the cowboys havent won a playoff game since.....96- or right in there. People jump all over the broncos for having 1 playoff game since elway left, yet the boys havent won a playoff game since before our last superbowl.

Watchthemiddle
06-07-2008, 02:05 AM
Its kind of hard to be 130-78 if you are as bad as some make you out to be in drafting and free agency.

tripleoption
06-07-2008, 10:08 AM
IMO people also need to remember how difficult it is to win a championship. I have a friend who got to talk to Rick Dennison through a church function a couple of years ago. Dennison told him everything the Broncos do is about winning. A lot of people like to second guess Shanahan for his personnel decisions, game planning or play calling, and that is the nature of the business. As fans we have that right, but the simple fact is he's forgotten more football than all of us on this board know combined. I know none of us would have his record if we were the HC of the Broncos :)

SeeingRed
06-07-2008, 10:22 AM
I know none of us would have his record if we were the HC of the Broncos :)

Try telling that to some of the people here.


Like tripleoption said, Shanny has forgotten more football than all of us put together know. Bowlen is loyal to him because he has no reason not to be. That's as simple as it can be.

Northman
06-07-2008, 11:57 AM
nice piece.

Its also fun to point out that the cowboys havent won a playoff game since.....96- or right in there. People jump all over the broncos for having 1 playoff game since elway left, yet the boys havent won a playoff game since before our last superbowl.

Not only that but look at the Lions, Bengals, etc. Those teams have gone decades with losing seasons. I dont think people truly understand what that means when it comes to being a winning franchise. In our playoff losses we have lost to a QB who we all know will go to the HOF and we eventually lost to the Super Bowl Champion Steelers and Baltimore Ravens in the other ones. Thats not really something you need to hang your head down about. Sometimes you just get beat by better teams. But overall, Shanahan has done a great job with this franchise we just need to find and regain the chemistry on and off the field to go that extra mile.

Broncospsycho77
06-07-2008, 12:14 PM
Hopefully this year will be the turnaround. Shanny should start calling the shots again with the playbook, where we go back to multiple formations of the same play... that was the elusiveness that typically won us games in the late 90s... and I hope Bowlen and Shanny still realize this.

Jay is certainly intelligent enough to run a complex offense (it's fitting that the offense run by a Stanford boy come back to be run by a Vanderbilt boy) that certain other quarterbacks couldn't muster, and the schemes were always the kicker. We have enough running backs to put multiple players in the backfield, enough WRs to throw in some ridiculous motion, and finally a line that can handle a few bigger defenses.

Bowlen is smart to give Shanny at least a year or two to switch back to the Shanahan scheme, even if it means we get some awful GM play for the next few years :D

Tned
06-07-2008, 01:55 PM
If the current 32 owners were given an opportunity to hire a coach/gm for the next 13 years, and were guaranteed to have an average record of 10-6 and win 2 Super Bowls during that span, how many do you think would say no?

Great piece.

It's the big picture that I have also been trying to point out to Broncos' fans the last couple of years.

Jwalk - JayCutty6Goes - CasinoRoyal
06-07-2008, 02:48 PM
http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd66/MOB-FAMILY/Superbowl_XXXII_ring.jpg

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd66/MOB-FAMILY/denver_xxxIII.jpg

And these bad boys.

omac
06-07-2008, 06:55 PM
Nice article, Ziggy! :salute:


If the current 32 owners were given an opportunity to hire a coach/gm for the next 13 years, and were guaranteed to have an average record of 10-6 and win 2 Super Bowls during that span, how many do you think would say no?

That says it all.

A lot of times, people like to point out that Shanny looks for scapegoats. I just think he's uncompromisingly brutal when it comes to putting up the best team he can for Bowlen and Denver. If that means firing a loyal guy like Coyer, letting go of fan favorite and lifer Elam, or making Lynch compete for the starting job, he'll do it. It may not seem nice, but it probably makes the team stronger in the long run ... well, except for hiring Bates for the D. :D

TXBRONC
06-07-2008, 08:45 PM
Great piece.

It's the big picture that I have also been trying to point out to Broncos' fans the last couple of years.


And you aint alone. :beer:

Jaded
06-07-2008, 09:57 PM
Long story/short, he's one hell of a coach......

Lonestar
06-08-2008, 12:25 AM
Great coach that has overcome is vast failures in the personnel area..

But I think that Pat has put the game on the line that no more screw ups like he has had in FA over the past 4-5 years and the total lack of have great drafts in many of the post super bowl years..

I know that I've have been seen as negative towards mikey, sorry since his super bowl years after losing 4 to 6 HOF players, he has not performed at near the level of that three year period.

2007 #23 with a 7-9 record missed play offs

2006 #10 with a 9-7 record

2005 #2 with a 13-3 record got asses kicked by PIT at HOME

2004 #7 with a 10-6 record ass kicked by INDY for second year

2003 #10 with a 10-6 record ass kicked by INDY

2002 #12 with a 9-7 record

2001 #14 with a 8-8 record

2000 #5 with an 11-5 record

1999 #24 with a 6-10 record

1998 #3 14-2 kicking ass all over the place won super bowl

1997 #4 12-4 won super bowl.

1996 #1 13-3 lost to JAX in stunner at home

1995 #14 8-8 missed playoffs

remember until 2006 SAN sucked so that was two gimmes each year and about the same for OAK..

We played in a rather weak division..Competetive but we dominated OAK and SAN and split with KC..

Had we not dafted so poorly for many of those years there is little doubt in my mind we would have won a couple more rings and probably 2 more wins per year over that time frame..

Your correct almost any owner would love to have mikey as their head coach.. But I'll bet most would not put up with his GM side..

Tned
06-08-2008, 12:54 AM
Your correct almost any owner would love to have mikey as their head coach.. But I'll bet most would not put up with his GM side..

There is one potentially fatal flaw in your logic. If Shanny hadn't been running the show, the team very well might not be 3rd in wins during his tenure and have two SB wins.

Would they have drafted TD? Would they have made some of the veteran FA moves that pushed them over the SB hump?

There are many questions, but I don't see how you can so easily assume that if someone else wore the GM hat that all the past 'good' things would still have happened, but the teams would have been 'better' and achieved more.

Maybe yes, maybe no.

Acedude
06-08-2008, 01:26 AM
One AFC West title since 1998 is awful. I'm sorry, but Shanahan is not a great HC. A great HC wins Division Titles. One Division Title since 1998 marks Shanahan as a poor head coach, actually.

Shanahan hasn't proven anything at all since 1998. So what if you win regular season games? Regular season wins mean nothing. TITLES is what counts. SD and Oak have won back to back AFC West Titles since 1998. Denver has not. SD won 3 out of the last 4 AFC West Titles with Drew Brees and Philip Rivers at QB and two different HC's. Oakland won consecutive AFC West Titles with Rich Gannon at QB and two different HC's.

Shanahan is actually pretty crappy as an HC.

Lonestar
06-08-2008, 04:02 AM
There is one potentially fatal flaw in your logic. If Shanny hadn't been running the show, the team very well might not be 3rd in wins during his tenure and have two SB wins.

Would they have drafted TD? Would they have made some of the veteran FA moves that pushed them over the SB hump?

There are many questions, but I don't see how you can so easily assume that if someone else wore the GM hat that all the past 'good' things would still have happened, but the teams would have been 'better' and achieved more.

Maybe yes, maybe no.

those FA moves were pretty much before the FA signing rage happened he was the trend setter..

TD was a total fluke, that fell inot the rigth situtation at teh right time under a great RB coach and OLINE coach,and frankly the only reason he got a decent look is he was a great ST player.. until then TD had serious doubts he could even make the team..

There is not one realistic fan that believes that mikey did not approve of every personnel move made on this team from day one.. So who gives flip who wore what hat..

Y'all can believe that mikey is the end all if you want. He is a great coach most of the time..

But then there are many times when everyone has called for his scalp because of the play calling.. or that the teams did not show up to play.. or for hiring such skells as coyer, bates, Dinger and God only knows how many assistant coaches.. And we will not mention all of the dead cap space because of really stupid FA moves..

I will always say that had GM mikey not blown so many day one picks, HC mikey would have won alot more games..

Lonestar
06-08-2008, 04:05 AM
One AFC West title since 1998 is awful. I'm sorry, but Shanahan is not a great HC. A great HC wins Division Titles. One Division Title since 1998 marks Shanahan as a poor head coach, actually.

Shanahan hasn't proven anything at all since 1998. So what if you win regular season games? Regular season wins mean nothing. TITLES is what counts. SD and Oak have won back to back AFC West Titles since 1998. Denver has not. SD won 3 out of the last 4 AFC West Titles with Drew Brees and Philip Rivers at QB and two different HC's. Oakland won consecutive AFC West Titles with Rich Gannon at QB and two different HC's.

Shanahan is actually pretty crappy as an HC.


Now that you mention it maybe he is not a great coach..

He must have pictures of Pat with a little boy in the bathroom..

Timmy!
06-08-2008, 11:44 AM
Shanahan is actually pretty crappy as an HC.

:pound: :laugh: :lol: :rofl:

omac
06-08-2008, 12:52 PM
One AFC West title since 1998 is awful. I'm sorry, but Shanahan is not a great HC. A great HC wins Division Titles. One Division Title since 1998 marks Shanahan as a poor head coach, actually.

Shanahan hasn't proven anything at all since 1998. So what if you win regular season games? Regular season wins mean nothing. TITLES is what counts. SD and Oak have won back to back AFC West Titles since 1998. Denver has not. SD won 3 out of the last 4 AFC West Titles with Drew Brees and Philip Rivers at QB and two different HC's. Oakland won consecutive AFC West Titles with Rich Gannon at QB and two different HC's.

Shanahan is actually pretty crappy as an HC.

Well, if titles are what counts, the last coach to win a Superbowl from the AFC West was Shanahan. Despite winning AFC West Titles, it's been about 3 decades since Oakland's won a Superbowl, about 4 decades since KC's won it, and SD's never won it. Would it have been better in 1997 to be the AFC West champs KC, or to be the Superbowl champs, Denver? No comparison.

Among 32 active head coaches in the league, only 6 have won Superbowls. Among them, only Belichick has won more Superbowls than Shannahan.

Until a head coach is able to win a Superbowl, he shouldn't even be compared to a head coach that has.

Among active head coaches, only Shanahan, Belichick, Coughlin, Dungy, Gruden, and Holmgren have shown that they know how to win a Superbowl. All others may have nice trinkets, but no superbowl hardware.

Ziggy
06-08-2008, 12:54 PM
Some people truly don't understand sports. They expect thier team to win every year, be competitive every year, and win division titles and championships every year. It's ridiculous. Sports are cyclical. No team is going to always win, SO GET OVER IT.

The NFL team with the all time best winning percentage (regular season and playoffs combined) is the Dallas Cowboys. They have the most post season wins, and are tied for the most Super Bowl wins with 5. In 48 years, they have not won thier division 28 times, failed to make the playoffs 19 times, have a playoff record of just .571, and have went at least 6 years without winning thier division 3 times. That's the best team in the history of the NFL winning %-wise. As you start to look at other teams, the numbers get much much worse.

For a team to average 10-6 and win 2 Super Bowls over a 13 year period is amazing. If you don't understand that, go have a couple of beers with a diehard Detroit Lions fan and talk football for a couple of hours. Or for that matter, a fan of nearly any other NFL team. You'll start to get a sense of just how lucky we are here in Denver. If you expect to win every year, go play your Madden game. That's the only way it's going to happen.

Lonestar
06-08-2008, 01:03 PM
Well, if titles are what counts, the last coach to win a Superbowl from the AFC West was Shanahan. Despite winning AFC West Titles, it's been about 3 decades since Oakland's won a Superbowl, about 4 decades since KC's won it, and SD's never won it. Would it have been better in 1997 to be the AFC West champs KC, or to be the Superbowl champs, Denver? No comparison.

Among 32 active head coaches in the league, only 6 have won Superbowls. Among them, only Belichick has won more Superbowls than Shannahan.

Until a head coach is able to win a Superbowl, he shouldn't even be compared to a head coach that has.

Among active head coaches, only Shanahan, Belichick, Coughlin, Dungy, Gruden, and Holmgren have shown that they know how to win a Superbowl. All others may have nice trinkets, but no superbowl hardware.

yet this is what mikey defines as his goal and success..

to be competitive in a weaker division so what..

I know that no one is gonna win super bowls every year but we have only sniffed at them 3 times getting to the AFCCG and frankly getting our ass kicked the last time.. The first time we lost a Playoff game at home against JAX the team was not prepared to win it, totally took the game for granted..

It took at least 3 and maybe as many as 5 HOF players for mikey to get those two rings, just how many HOF players do you see on this current team..

IMO if we get to playoff game this year the odds of not getting our ass kicked again by the AFC powerhouses as pretty damned good.

Lonestar
06-08-2008, 01:12 PM
Some people truly don't understand sports. They expect thier team to win every year, be competitive every year, and win division titles and championships every year. It's ridiculous. Sports are cyclical. No team is going to always win, SO GET OVER IT.

The NFL team with the all time best winning percentage (regular season and playoffs combined) is the Dallas Cowboys. They have the most post season wins, and are tied for the most Super Bowl wins with 5. In 48 years, they have not won thier division 28 times, failed to make the playoffs 19 times, have a playoff record of just .571, and have went at least 6 years without winning thier division 3 times. That's the best team in the history of the NFL winning %-wise. As you start to look at other teams, the numbers get much much worse.

For a team to average 10-6 and win 2 Super Bowls over a 13 year period is amazing. If you don't understand that, go have a couple of beers with a diehard Detroit Lions fan and talk football for a couple of hours. Or for that matter, a fan of nearly any other NFL team. You'll start to get a sense of just how lucky we are here in Denver. If you expect to win every year, go play your Madden game. That's the only way it's going to happen.

While I agree wit alot of your statement, your comparing the best and most classy franchises with eh worst in terms of ownership..

Frankly I could care less about the other franchises and their success or lack thereof..

Pat has one of the best franchises in the NFL. Has spared no funds in making it one of the best.. well maybe until last year when they started cutting back in the FO..

I've never seen madden games let alone played it, so please do not lump me in with those folks..

AS I said above Pat and mikey have set the standard for success here in DEN.. it was not arbitrarily set for them by Jerry Jones or Harold Ford.. so:


Pardon me all to hell if I expect them to adhere,
to their own mission statement..

Ziggy
06-08-2008, 01:18 PM
so:


Pardon me all to hell if I expect them to adhere,
to their own mission statement..

I couldn't seem to find a link to that mission statement. Mind posting it or providing a link JR?

omac
06-08-2008, 01:19 PM
Some people truly don't understand sports. They expect thier team to win every year, be competitive every year, and win division titles and championships every year. It's ridiculous. Sports are cyclical. No team is going to always win, SO GET OVER IT.

The NFL team with the all time best winning percentage (regular season and playoffs combined) is the Dallas Cowboys. They have the most post season wins, and are tied for the most Super Bowl wins with 5. In 48 years, they have not won thier division 28 times, failed to make the playoffs 19 times, have a playoff record of just .571, and have went at least 6 years without winning thier division 3 times. That's the best team in the history of the NFL winning %-wise. As you start to look at other teams, the numbers get much much worse.

For a team to average 10-6 and win 2 Super Bowls over a 13 year period is amazing. If you don't understand that, go have a couple of beers with a diehard Detroit Lions fan and talk football for a couple of hours. Or for that matter, a fan of nearly any other NFL team. You'll start to get a sense of just how lucky we are here in Denver. You expect to win every year, go play your Madden game. That's the only way it's going to happen.

Great post! :salute:

I don't think people get that at all. :D

Just to add, the NFL is set up so that the strong teams get weaker, and the weak teams get stronger. A lousy team drafts high, while a good team drafts low. A lousy team gets a weaker schedule to help them get more wins, while a good team gets a stronger schedule to prevent them from winning too easily. Denver's been consistently good since Shanahan's gotten here, and it's severely hurt our draft possition, and given us a tougher strength of schedule.

SD's been bad for quite a while, so it's no surprise they have top players, picking so high in the draft. Their original draft spots from 1998 to 2004 were ... 2, 8, 13, 1, 5, 15, 1. Two 1's, a 2, an 8 and a 5, all in a 7 year period! Tough to consistently miss with those high picks all the time, and so much room to negotiate for value. Compare that to Denver's 30, 31, 10, 24, 19, 20, 24.

Our problem with Shanny is that Denver never becomes a consistently bad team, and that will always hurt our draft, and therefore our ability to garner the elite college players. If he were more of a losing coach, like say Herm for KC, then we could stockpile elite draft picks, like SD was doing, like Oakland still continues to do, and like KC is currently doing.

Kapaibro
06-08-2008, 01:23 PM
2005 we may have lost to Pitt, but at least we beat the Pats!

Lonestar
06-08-2008, 01:23 PM
I couldn't seem to find a link to that mission statement. Mind posting it or providing a link JR?


While I have not read it myself every old press conference he has stated the teams goals as going to and winning the Superbowl each year..

I would guess that it is in the mission statement somewhere..

It is there or mikey is blowing smoke up everyones ass each time he spouts it..

You chose..

Lonestar
06-08-2008, 01:26 PM
2005 we may have lost to Pitt, but at least we beat the Pats!

we did at least achieve that at home, consistently beat the PATs.:salute:

Ziggy
06-08-2008, 01:45 PM
While I have not read it myself every old press conference he has stated the teams goals as going to and winning the Superbowl each year..
I would guess that it is in the mission statement somewhere..

It is there or mikey is blowing smoke up everyones ass each time he spouts it..

You chose..

And they have tried to win the Super Bowl every year. Only 1 team can do that every year. 31 teams fail. That's a 97% failure rate JR. Shanahan has succeeded in 2 of his 13 years in Denver. That's an 85% failure rate. As far as the NFL goes, that's pretty darn good. I'm just curious JR. If you're this unhappy when the Broncos are the 3rd best team in the NFL over the last 13 years, what are you going to be like when the cycle comes full swing and we become an average or below average team over a 13 year span?

omac
06-08-2008, 01:45 PM
yet this is what mikey defines as his goal and success..

to be competitive in a weaker division so what..

I know that no one is gonna win super bowls every year but we have only sniffed at them 3 times getting to the AFCCG and frankly getting our ass kicked the last time.. The first time we lost a Playoff game at home against JAX the team was not prepared to win it, totally took the game for granted..

It took at least 3 and maybe as many as 5 HOF players for mikey to get those two rings, just how many HOF players do you see on this current team..

IMO if we get to playoff game this year the odds of not getting our ass kicked again by the AFC powerhouses as pretty damned good.

Yes we did get our ass kicked in that AFCCG; that's probably when Shanny saw that we needed another QB.

If you look at the Pats teams, you'd see a whole lot of talent, not just at QB, but at both lines. The current one has the best QB in the game, the best WR in the game, the best TE in the game, and until their loss to the Giants, many feel they had one of the best OL's in the game. Yet they still lost the big one.

With the Giants, their DL is one of the best, and may have HOF potential.

At a glance, I see that Jay, Brandon, and Tony are easily a step above most of their compatriots. Champ's already considered the game's best. Dummerville is among the best in the league at sacking the QB.

Will Clady, Moss, Thomas, Crowder, etc. work out? Who knows?

You can say Mikey needed all those talents to win the superbowl, but I'm almost certain all of the SB winning teams had great talent with them. We will have to see whether those guys will turn out to be as solid as the other guys who've won superbowls, and though I wouldn't know if they are, I'm not convinced that they aren't. You seem pretty convinced though, but that's okay; you felt the same way about Dummerville but was pleasantly surprised. :cheers:

Tned
06-08-2008, 01:46 PM
Some people truly don't understand sports. They expect thier team to win every year, be competitive every year, and win division titles and championships every year. It's ridiculous. Sports are cyclical. No team is going to always win, SO GET OVER IT.

The NFL team with the all time best winning percentage (regular season and playoffs combined) is the Dallas Cowboys. They have the most post season wins, and are tied for the most Super Bowl wins with 5. In 48 years, they have not won thier division 28 times, failed to make the playoffs 19 times, have a playoff record of just .571, and have went at least 6 years without winning thier division 3 times. That's the best team in the history of the NFL winning %-wise. As you start to look at other teams, the numbers get much much worse.

For a team to average 10-6 and win 2 Super Bowls over a 13 year period is amazing. If you don't understand that, go have a couple of beers with a diehard Detroit Lions fan and talk football for a couple of hours. Or for that matter, a fan of nearly any other NFL team. You'll start to get a sense of just how lucky we are here in Denver. If you expect to win every year, go play your Madden game. That's the only way it's going to happen.


Great post, Ziggy. A concept that some can't grasp.

Tned
06-08-2008, 01:57 PM
While I agree wit alot of your statement, your comparing the best and most classy franchises with eh worst in terms of ownership..

Frankly I could care less about the other franchises and their success or lack thereof..

Pat has one of the best franchises in the NFL. Has spared no funds in making it one of the best.. well maybe until last year when they started cutting back in the FO..

I've never seen madden games let alone played it, so please do not lump me in with those folks..

AS I said above Pat and mikey have set the standard for success here in DEN.. it was not arbitrarily set for them by Jerry Jones or Harold Ford.. so:


Pardon me all to hell if I expect them to adhere,
to their own mission statement..

So, what your saying is the ONLY way you can knock Shanahan is to compare him to himself, each year compare the Broncos to the BEST the Broncos have done, and if they don't live up they are failures??? :confused:


While I have not read it myself every old press conference he has stated the teams goals as going to and winning the Superbowl each year..

I would guess that it is in the mission statement somewhere..

It is there or mikey is blowing smoke up everyones ass each time he spouts it..

You chose..

I scratch my head whenever I read posts like this, and consider ramming it into a brick wall to see if I could follow the logic with a fractured skull and concussion.

The ONLY reason the Broncos can set their goal as winning the SB every year, is because in virtually EVERY year that he has coached them, Shanny has put a comptetive team on the field. Something almost no other team can claim during that time.

Beyond that, your lieing/blowing smoke rhetoric just goes further to tarnish your credibility (in terms of you not being objective in regards to Shanahan) on this subject. How many interviews do you read or hear before the Daytona 500, where they say, "We think we have a pretty chance to finish in the bottom 10..." or, "there are at least three drivers out there we think we can beat"?

When someone like Lovy Smith takes over a horrible Bears team, where their fans only goal is to have a .500 season, he can say things like the goal is to beat the Packers. When Marv Lewis takes over a horrible Bengals team, he can talk about getting to .500.

When a coach is heading up a team that has had 1 losing season in 13 years or so (since you are judging him on the 'goal is to win the SB' which we haven't heard in regard to '08), then it would be ridiculous for him to say, "our goal is to be .500 or better this year".

Again, you are judging/grading him by his own success and the fact that year in and year out he DOES put a team on the field that is considered a SB contender. The part you don't seem to grasp is that having a goal of being a SB winner and being considered a contender DOES NOT MEAN YOU WILL WIN. Look at how many coaches in the NFL have brought their team to the SB, not to mention winning it.

Lonestar
06-08-2008, 02:10 PM
And they have tried to win the Super Bowl every year. Only 1 team can do that every year. 31 teams fail. That's a 97% failure rate JR. Shanahan has succeeded in 2 of his 13 years in Denver. That's an 85% failure rate. As far as the NFL goes, that's pretty darn good. I'm just curious JR. If you're this unhappy when the Broncos are the 3rd best team in the NFL over the last 13 years, what are you going to be like when the cycle comes full swing and we become an average or below average team over a 13 year span?


please remember I have been a fan since day one September 1960 and still am.. so perhaps that is your answer.. Was south stander until they built the upper deck, I saw every home game until I went active duty in the Navy and then when I moved out of state for good in 1979.

As long as Pat is the owner I'm pretty confident that we will never have the bottom end of the cycle.

BTW do you really believe that DEN is the 3rd best team over that time span" I mean really.. Once you take out those three years 1996-98 out, we are not quite as good IMO..

When mikey lost his HOF players we became a bit above average.. again IMO

Lonestar
06-08-2008, 02:19 PM
Yes we did get our ass kicked in that AFCCG; that's probably when Shanny saw that we needed another QB.

If you look at the Pats teams, you'd see a whole lot of talent, not just at QB, but at both lines. The current one has the best QB in the game, the best WR in the game, the best TE in the game, and until their loss to the Giants, many feel they had one of the best OL's in the game. Yet they still lost the big one.

With the Giants, their DL is one of the best, and may have HOF potential.

At a glance, I see that Jay, Brandon, and Tony are easily a step above most of their compatriots. Champ's already considered the game's best. Dummerville is among the best in the league at sacking the QB.

Will Clady, Moss, Thomas, Crowder, etc. work out? Who knows?

You can say Mikey needed all those talents to win the superbowl, but I'm almost certain all of the SB winning teams had great talent with them. We will have to see whether those guys will turn out to be as solid as the other guys who've won superbowls, and though I wouldn't know if they are, I'm not convinced that they aren't. You seem pretty convinced though, but that's okay; you felt the same way about Dummerville but was pleasantly surprised. :cheers:


good post let me add if mikey did not see that the LOS was being dominated at that time and I;d guess he did not due tot eh complete lack of addressing it in the off season that year the n IMO he was derelict in his duty as VP football operations..
that maybe all of the wing Superbowl teams may not have been loaded with HOF players it took mikey 3 to possibly 5 of them to do so.. since they left he has been a bit above average in his winning %

He usually fields competitive teams despite the talent that he and he alone is responsible for bringing in.. That is a compliment to mikey the HC..

Yes I was pleasantly surprise that Dumervil is a sack machine lets hope he can develop to play more that pass only downs.. and lets further hope that mikey can re-sign him, instead of allowing him to get away like he has let others boogie..

Ziggy
06-08-2008, 02:29 PM
please remember I have been a fan since day one September 1960 and still am.. so perhaps that is your answer.. Was south stander until they built the upper deck, I saw every home game until I went active duty in the Navy and then when I moved out of state for good in 1979.

As long as Pat is the owner I'm pretty confident that we will never have the bottom end of the cycle.

BTW do you really believe that DEN is the 3rd best team over that time span" I mean really.. Once you take out those three years 1996-98 out, we are not quite as good IMO..

When mikey lost his HOF players we became a bit above average.. again IMO


No coach has won the Super Bowl without Hall of Fame players. As far as having the bottom end of the cycle....it will come. It may not be soon, but it will come. If you don't understand that, you just don't understand sports. As I said before, the winningest team in NFL history is the Dallas Cowboys. They have an all-time regular season winning % of .573. That means that as the winningest team in NFL history, they still lose 43% of thier games over the long haul.

Being a fan of the Broncos and sticking with them since 1960 earns some respect from me JR. I think you have a little trouble seeing the big picture. Either that or you are perhaps a 'glass half empty' kind of guy. It amazes me that you cheered for those lousy Bronco teams for so many years and can still not be happy with where they are right now. What were you like in the 60's, when thier combined record was 39-89-1? Has it just been so long ago that you can't appreciate what we have here now?

Lonestar
06-08-2008, 02:40 PM
No coach has won the Super Bowl without Hall of Fame players. As far as having the bottom end of the cycle....it will come. It may not be soon, but it will come. If you don't understand that, you just don't understand sports. As I said before, the winningest team in NFL history is the Dallas Cowboys. They have an all-time regular season winning % of .573. That means that as the winningest team in NFL history, they still lose 43% of thier games over the long haul.

Being a fan of the Broncos and sticking with them since 1960 earns some respect from me JR. I think you have a little trouble seeing the big picture. Either that or you are perhaps a 'glass half empty' kind of guy. It amazes me that you cheered for those lousy Bronco teams for so many years and can still not be happy with where they are right now. What were you like in the 60's, when thier combined record was 39-89-1? Has it just been so long ago that you can't appreciate what we have here now?

I guess you can't see the forest from my Trees Let me say it just one more time..

I have rarely said the mikey is not a great offensive coach. have occasionally said that his teams are not prepared and sometimes that his play calling sucked..

But there are few if any offensive master minds in the game on his level..

I have always said that he has more in spite of the players he dealt himself..

I saw a lot of talent in those early years that was totally misused by really bad coaches.. so when a brilliant coach can't get quality players is to say they least frustrates me.

If Y'all wish to believe mikey has been the best he could have been for this team fine by me, I do not answer to you nor you me.. I will continue to believe, like most folks that the black period in DAFTING from 2000-05 doomed this team, to the past two poor seasons regardless of how great an owner, coach or staff that DEN has..

Tned
06-08-2008, 03:11 PM
No coach has won the Super Bowl without Hall of Fame players. As far as having the bottom end of the cycle....it will come. It may not be soon, but it will come. If you don't understand that, you just don't understand sports. As I said before, the winningest team in NFL history is the Dallas Cowboys. They have an all-time regular season winning % of .573. That means that as the winningest team in NFL history, they still lose 43% of thier games over the long haul.


And, those great cowboys had a run in the '80s of:
7, 7, 3, 1 and 7 wins over a five year span.

Then, in '97 they won 6 games, then from '99-'04 went:
8, 5, 5, 5, 10, 6. I live in Cowboy country, and during that stretch from '99 on, my friends that were Cowboy's fans were talking about how they thought the team was good enough to be .500. This was really over close to a decade stretch following their SB wins, because while they popped in two anonymolous 10 win seasons, by and large they were a sub .500 team from '97 to 2005:
6
10
8
5
5
10
6
During that stretch, the fans were saying, "I think we are good enough to win 8 games and stuff like that."

When was the last time the Broncos fans had a prolonged stretch of HOPING for a .500 season, even though you knew the odds of actually achieving 8 wins was slim to none?

That is what tells you how great the Broncos have been under Shanny's reins. The mear fact we can sit here and bash him for only winning 2 SB's, for having TWO losing seasons in in THIRTEEN years. For ONLY getting to the playoffs 7 times in those 13 years.

Speaking of playoff appearances, here is how many times each team has been to the playoffs over the last 13 years (since Shanny has been coach).

24 of the 32 teams (75%) have had fewere trips to the playoffs than the Broncos over the last 13 years.


IND 10
GB 9
NE 9
PHI 8
PIT 8
DAL 7
DEN 7
TB 7
JAX 6
MIA 6
MIN 6
NYG 6
SF 6
SEA 6
NYJ 5
STL 5
TEN 5
ATL 4
Bal 4
Buf 4
KC 4
SD 4
CAR 3
DET 3
OAK 3
WAS 3
CHI 2
NO 2
AZ 1
CIN 1
CLE 1
HOU 0

Ziggy
06-08-2008, 03:16 PM
I guess this, like life, basically comes down to choices. No coach or GM is going to be perfect, and you can find reasons to bash every one of them for one reason or another. There are no exceptions to this. I choose to look at the overall picture and dwell on the positives. You chose to dwell on the negatives. I choose to enjoy my team and thier successes, and overlook the failures. You seem to want to wallow in the misery of thier failures, and overlook the positives. I'll enjoy my Broncos. I hope you enjoy.....well whatever it is that you enjoy.

Lonestar
06-08-2008, 05:09 PM
I guess this, like life, basically comes down to choices. No coach or GM is going to be perfect, and you can find reasons to bash every one of them for one reason or another. There are no exceptions to this. I choose to look at the overall picture and dwell on the positives. You chose to dwell on the negatives. I choose to enjoy my team and thier successes, and overlook the failures. You seem to want to wallow in the misery of thier failures, and overlook the positives. I'll enjoy my Broncos. I hope you enjoy.....well whatever it is that you enjoy.


been a drought lately huh?

You still fail to grasp what I have said..

I enjoy my donkeys I would enjoy them more if they were living up to there goals.. and the only reason they have failed to do so IMO is a failure to acquire and maintain good personnel over a 4-5 year period..

I believe that Pat also sees it my way or mikey would not have been placed on an austerity program unlike past year when it came to signing expensive FA to fill all the holes on this team..

Tned
06-08-2008, 05:59 PM
I believe that Pat also sees it my way or mikey would not have been placed on an austerity program unlike past year when it came to signing expensive FA to fill all the holes on this team..

You don't think that has anything to do with the well publicized cash flow problems at Dove Valley? :confused:

Denver Native (Carol)
06-08-2008, 06:09 PM
According to the published free agent listing for 2008, not many teams jumped on the bandwagon, and according to the list, there were 30 free agents, and 13 still have not signed with a new team.

http://www.nfl.com/freeagency

Tned
06-08-2008, 06:10 PM
I believe that Pat also sees it my way or mikey would not have been placed on an austerity program unlike past year when it came to signing expensive FA to fill all the holes on this team..


Per the Denver Post, the Broncos released eight employees on Wednesday, including director of media relations Paul Kirk and Andrew Mason, the managing editor of the team’s official web site.

“It’s a very, very difficult day when you have to eliminate jobs,” said Broncos’ chief operating officer Joe Ellis. “Especially when loyal, hardworking employees are involved. But our industry is like many others where downsizing and layoffs are required to make the business more effective.”

The moves possibly arise from a cash-flow problem within the franchise. But, clearly, there’s not a profit problem. So why can’t owner Pat Bowlen find a way to take advantage of the fact that he’s in a business that generates plenty of black ink, and that continues to enjoy continuous growth in the value of the operation?
http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/03/19/broncos-lay-off-eight-employees/


Let there be no doubt money is tight at Dove Valley.

The latest hint occurred Wednesday, when budget cuts led the Broncos to dismiss eight employees not directly involved in football operations, including Paul Kirk, the Broncos' director of media relations and Andrew Mason, managing editor of DenverBroncos.com.

"It's a very, very difficult day when you have to eliminate jobs," said Joe Ellis, the Broncos' chief operating officer. "Especially when loyal, hardworking employees are involved. But our industry is like many others, where downsizing and layoffs are required to make the business more effective."

The first hint the Broncos were cash-strapped this year was after three of coach Mike Shanahan's top assistants — defensive head coach Jim Bates, offensive head coach Mike Heimerdinger and general manager Ted Sundquist — departed and were replaced in-house.

Then there was the Broncos' judicious spending, both in the free-agent market and while re-signing their own players. Now the organization has cut people who worked behind the scenes.

Under Mason's leadership, the Broncos' website ranked among the NFL's top 10 in terms of number of hits. Kirk worked in the Broncos' media relations department for 13 years.

"I've been proud to be part of such a fine organization," Kirk said. "I feel I've given everything I could during my time there. There are outstanding people there who are good friends and I wish them well."

In a memo issued to each department Wednesday, Ellis notified employees of the cutbacks with the message, "It is important to note these decisions come at the expense of personal pain to individuals whose jobs were eliminated for reasons of business efficiency — not on the basis of performance."
http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_8629051

Ok, we're ready for the next 'proof' that even Bowlen has lost in Shanny the GM.

Lonestar
06-08-2008, 07:16 PM
You don't think that has anything to do with the well publicized cash flow problems at Dove Valley? :confused:


Hmmmmm I wonder if those money issues, IF REAL, might have been brought on by all of the dead cap space mikey has issued over the past few years..

I do not think Pat is hurting for cash as much as it being a NFLPA showdown coming down the road..

But of course I could be wrong..

I think that Pat is tired of wasting money on marginal, expensive aging vet FA's that do nothing but plug gapping holes created by lousy drafts 2000-05.. Signing rookies instead of these guys and then being able to resign those we need to seem to me and most fans a higher priority than getting someone to play a couple of years and then be cut because we can't afford them any longer..

But of course I could be wrong..

Pats clear message in the press about going a different direction this year NOT going after FA and trying to build via the draft seemed pretty clear to me. Not signing any heavy hitters except Robertson and only going after the WR group was necessary because of Marshall's bone headed horseplay..

But of course I could be wrong..

BroncoJoe
06-08-2008, 07:18 PM
I wonder why Ted is gone?

Lonestar
06-08-2008, 07:19 PM
According to the published free agent listing for 2008, not many teams jumped on the bandwagon, and according to the list, there were 30 free agents, and 13 still have not signed with a new team.

http://www.nfl.com/freeagency

good find

do you think this is a coincidence after potting out of the NFLPA or perhaps a signal that the owners think folks are over paid.. OR BOTH

maybe even the quality of players out this year..

Denver Native (Carol)
06-08-2008, 07:53 PM
good find

do you think this is a coincidence after potting out of the NFLPA or perhaps a signal that the owners think folks are over paid.. OR BOTH

maybe even the quality of players out this year..

Could be any one or all of those reasons. Just not a lot of FA movement this year.

Tned
06-08-2008, 08:02 PM
Hmmmmm I wonder if those money issues, IF REAL, might have been brought on by all of the dead cap space mikey has issued over the past few years..

I do not think Pat is hurting for cash as much as it being a NFLPA showdown coming down the road..

But of course I could be wrong..

I think that Pat is tired of wasting money on marginal, expensive aging vet FA's that do nothing but plug gapping holes created by lousy drafts 2000-05.. Signing rookies instead of these guys and then being able to resign those we need to seem to me and most fans a higher priority than getting someone to play a couple of years and then be cut because we can't afford them any longer..

But of course I could be wrong..

Pats clear message in the press about going a different direction this year NOT going after FA and trying to build via the draft seemed pretty clear to me. Not signing any heavy hitters except Robertson and only going after the WR group was necessary because of Marshall's bone headed horseplay..

But of course I could be wrong..

Jr, if I said "red", you would say, "see, Shanny sucks because he didn't change the uniforms to red". If I said, "grain alcohol" you would say, "see, Shanahan has ruined the team because he doesn't get the players drunk on moonshine during half-time".

You simply aren't objective when it comes to Shanahan. No matter what is said, you manage to distort/spin it into a reason to make an anti-Shanan statement. Each to their own, that's what's nice about a message board, everyone can share their opinion, regardless of whether or not it is objective.

Acedude
06-09-2008, 10:14 AM
Well, if titles are what counts, the last coach to win a Superbowl from the AFC West was Shanahan. Despite winning AFC West Titles, it's been about 3 decades since Oakland's won a Superbowl, about 4 decades since KC's won it, and SD's never won it. Would it have been better in 1997 to be the AFC West champs KC, or to be the Superbowl champs, Denver? No comparison.

Among 32 active head coaches in the league, only 6 have won Superbowls. Among them, only Belichick has won more Superbowls than Shannahan.

Until a head coach is able to win a Superbowl, he shouldn't even be compared to a head coach that has.

Among active head coaches, only Shanahan, Belichick, Coughlin, Dungy, Gruden, and Holmgren have shown that they know how to win a Superbowl. All others may have nice trinkets, but no superbowl hardware.

Like you said, League Titles are hard to win. Very few HC's win them. But Division Titles should be easier to win, then, right? So why hasn't Shanny won consecutive AFC West Titles since 1998? He's had good rosters, he's just not a good HC (since 1998).

'96-'98 he put it all together very well with roster, assistant staff. Since then he's tripped over his own feet continually, especially with the assistant staff.

Acedude
06-09-2008, 10:27 AM
Some people truly don't understand sports. They expect thier team to win every year, be competitive every year, and win division titles and championships every year. It's ridiculous. Sports are cyclical. No team is going to always win, SO GET OVER IT.

The NFL team with the all time best winning percentage (regular season and playoffs combined) is the Dallas Cowboys. They have the most post season wins, and are tied for the most Super Bowl wins with 5. In 48 years, they have not won thier division 28 times, failed to make the playoffs 19 times, have a playoff record of just .571, and have went at least 6 years without winning thier division 3 times. That's the best team in the history of the NFL winning %-wise. As you start to look at other teams, the numbers get much much worse.

For a team to average 10-6 and win 2 Super Bowls over a 13 year period is amazing. If you don't understand that, go have a couple of beers with a diehard Detroit Lions fan and talk football for a couple of hours. Or for that matter, a fan of nearly any other NFL team. You'll start to get a sense of just how lucky we are here in Denver. If you expect to win every year, go play your Madden game. That's the only way it's going to happen.

One AFC West Title since 1998 is awful. Come on, you expected more than that, right? Zero AFC Championships since '98, you expected at least one, right? One single playoff win since '98, you expected more than that, right?

You expect me to view Shanahan as a great HC when he has one AFC West Title in the past nine seasons, one playoff win, and that's the total list of his accomplishments? You're nuts.

Acedude
06-09-2008, 10:59 AM
So, what your saying is the ONLY way you can knock Shanahan is to compare him to himself, each year compare the Broncos to the BEST the Broncos have done, and if they don't live up they are failures??? :confused:



I scratch my head whenever I read posts like this, and consider ramming it into a brick wall to see if I could follow the logic with a fractured skull and concussion.

The ONLY reason the Broncos can set their goal as winning the SB every year, is because in virtually EVERY year that he has coached them, Shanny has put a comptetive team on the field. Something almost no other team can claim during that time.

Beyond that, your lieing/blowing smoke rhetoric just goes further to tarnish your credibility (in terms of you not being objective in regards to Shanahan) on this subject. How many interviews do you read or hear before the Daytona 500, where they say, "We think we have a pretty chance to finish in the bottom 10..." or, "there are at least three drivers out there we think we can beat"?

When someone like Lovy Smith takes over a horrible Bears team, where their fans only goal is to have a .500 season, he can say things like the goal is to beat the Packers. When Marv Lewis takes over a horrible Bengals team, he can talk about getting to .500.

When a coach is heading up a team that has had 1 losing season in 13 years or so (since you are judging him on the 'goal is to win the SB' which we haven't heard in regard to '08), then it would be ridiculous for him to say, "our goal is to be .500 or better this year".

Again, you are judging/grading him by his own success and the fact that year in and year out he DOES put a team on the field that is considered a SB contender. The part you don't seem to grasp is that having a goal of being a SB winner and being considered a contender DOES NOT MEAN YOU WILL WIN. Look at how many coaches in the NFL have brought their team to the SB, not to mention winning it.

So, you're saying Shanahan has been a poor HC since 1998 BY HIS OWN STANDARDS.

Acedude
06-09-2008, 11:30 AM
Jr, if I said "red", you would say, "see, Shanny sucks because he didn't change the uniforms to red". If I said, "grain alcohol" you would say, "see, Shanahan has ruined the team because he doesn't get the players drunk on moonshine during half-time".

You simply aren't objective when it comes to Shanahan. No matter what is said, you manage to distort/spin it into a reason to make an anti-Shanan statement. Each to their own, that's what's nice about a message board, everyone can share their opinion, regardless of whether or not it is objective.

I see YOU as not being objective. "Love is blind".

MOtorboat
06-09-2008, 11:55 AM
One AFC West Title since 1998 is awful. Come on, you expected more than that, right? Zero AFC Championships since '98, you expected at least one, right? One single playoff win since '98, you expected more than that, right?

You expect me to view Shanahan as a great HC when he has one AFC West Title in the past nine seasons, one playoff win, and that's the total list of his accomplishments? You're nuts.

Try comparing him around the league, and let me know what you come up with.

Who's better than him? Belicheck and Dungy? Maybe Cowher before he retired...go ahead...enlighten me.

MOtorboat
06-09-2008, 12:01 PM
Interesting read, thank you Ziggy.

Lonestar
06-09-2008, 12:29 PM
Try comparing him around the league, and let me know what you come up with.

Who's better than him? Belicheck and Dungy? Maybe Cowher before he retired...go ahead...enlighten me.

While this coaching community is small, what do they have in common great cities, fan bases and last but not least great owners..

Why is is so hard for alot of you to understand, if they can do it with great coaches and owners why can't we?

Personnel decisions made by them put them over the top plain and simple..

Just do not see how Y'all can't see this..

I think Mikey overall is on par with these coaches it is just he was dealt a short deck with the personnel brought in to allow him to do the job..

Do you think any of those coaches could have won consistently with these skells..

2005 - Denver Broncos
Rd Sel # Player Position School
2 56 Darrent Williams CB Oklahoma State
3 76 Karl Paymah DB Washington State
3 97 Domonique Foxworth CB Maryland
3 101 Maurice Clarett -- Ohio State
6 200 Chris Myers G Miami (Fla.)
7 239 Paul Ernster K Northern Arizona

2004 - Denver Broncos
Rd Sel # Player Position School
1 17 D.J. Williams OLB Miami (Fla.)
2 41 Tatum Bell RB Oklahoma State
2 54 Darius Watts WR Marshall
3 85 Jeremy LeSueur CB Michigan
5 152 Jeff Shoate CB San Diego State
6 171 Triandos Luke WR Alabama
6 190 Josh Sewell -- Nebraska
7 225 Matt Mauck QB Louisiana State
7 247 Brandon Miree RB Pittsburgh
7 250 Bradlee Van Pelt QB Colorado State

2003 - Denver Broncos
Rd Sel # Player Position School
1 20 George Foster T Georgia
2 51 Terry Pierce LB Kansas State
4 108 Quentin Griffin RB Oklahoma
4 114 Nick Eason DT Clemson
4 128 Bryant McNeal DE Clemson
5 157 Ben Claxton C Mississippi
5 158 Adrian Madise WR Texas Christian
6 194 Aaron Hunt -- Texas Tech
7 227 Clint Mitchell DE Florida
7 235 Ahmaad Galloway RB Alabama

2002 - Denver Broncos
Rd Sel # Player Position School
1 19 Ashley Lelie WR Hawaii
2 51 Clinton Portis RB Miami (Fla.)
3 96 Dorsett Davis DT Mississippi State
4 131 Sam Brandon DB Nevada-Las Vegas
5 144 Herb Haygood WR Michigan State
6 191 Jeb Putzier TE Boise State
7 228 Chris Young DB Georgia Tech
7 231 Monsanto Pope DT Virginia

2001 - Denver Broncos
Rd Sel # Player Position School
1 24 Willie Middlebrooks CB Minnesota
2 51 Paul Toviessi DE Marshall
3 87 Reggie Hayward DE Iowa State
4 113 Ben Hamilton C Minnesota
4 120 Nick Harris P California
6 190 Kevin Kasper WR Iowa

2000 - Denver Broncos
Rd Sel # Player Position School
1 15 Deltha O'Neal CB California
2 40 Ian Gold LB Michigan
2 45 Kenoy Kennedy SAF Arkansas
3 70 Chris Cole WR Texas A&M
4 101 Jerry Johnson DT Florida State
4 112 Cooper Carlisle G Florida
5 154 Muneer Moore WR Richmond
6 189 Mike Anderson RB Utah
7 214 Jarious Jackson QB Notre Dame
7 246 Leroy Fields -- Jackson State

1999 - Denver Broncos
Rd Sel # Player Position School
1 31 Al Wilson MLB Tennessee
2 58 Montae Reagor DE Texas Tech
2 61 Lennie Friedman C Duke
3 67 Chris Watson CB Eastern Illinois
3 93 Travis McGriff WR Florida
4 127 Olandis Gary RB Georgia
5 158 David Bowens LB Western Illinois
5 167 Darwin Brown DB Texas Tech
6 179 Desmond Clark TE Wake Forest
6 204 Chad Plummer WR Cincinnati
7 218 Billy Miller WR USC
7 238 Justin Swift TE Kansas State

1998 - Denver Broncos
Rd Sel # Player Position School
1 30 Marcus Nash WR Tennessee
2 61 Eric Brown SS Mississippi State
3 91 Brian Griese QB Michigan
4 122 Curtis Alexander -- Alabama
5 153 Chris Howard RB Michigan
7 200 Trey Teague T Tennessee
7 219 Nate Wayne LB Mississippi


How many real QUALITY starters on that list.. 4-5 tops..

Sure there were a few that started for us, but would they have started for any other elite team.. Why did they start for us? Perhaps the talent level was so far depleted we had no other choice..

when traded, cut or lost in FA how many of them moved on to other elite teams and played.. how many moved on to skell teams and have been consistent players or in most cases failures..

Those are the pertinent question you have to ask many bronco fans just have not asked themselves honest questions..

MOtorboat
06-09-2008, 12:53 PM
AGAIN!

You can't say we suck at drafting when you NEVER compare it to anything other than itself. That's not a good comparison.

And weren't we talking about coaching and not drafting, or are you deflecting the issue now?

Broncospsycho77
06-09-2008, 12:58 PM
While this coaching community is small, what do they have in common great cities, fan bases and last but not least great owners..

Why is is so hard for alot of you to understand, if they can do it with great coaches and owners why can't we?

Personnel decisions made by them put them over the top plain and simple..

Just do not see how Y'all can't see this..

I think Mikey overall is on par with these coaches it is just he was dealt a short deck with the personnel brought in to allow him to do the job..

Do you think any of those coaches could have won consistently with these skells..

2005 - Denver Broncos
Rd Sel # Player Position School
2 56 Darrent Williams CB Oklahoma State
3 76 Karl Paymah DB Washington State
3 97 Domonique Foxworth CB Maryland
3 101 Maurice Clarett -- Ohio State
6 200 Chris Myers G Miami (Fla.)
7 239 Paul Ernster K Northern Arizona


Though our drafting woes in the past are obvious, I believe our drafting in the last 3 years have been a great improvement.

Lonestar
06-09-2008, 01:03 PM
Though our drafting woes in the past are obvious, I believe our drafting in the last 3 years have been a great improvement.


So far so good.. but the proof of the pudding is how many will indeed be on the team 2-5 years form now and will some of them be starters then ..

Many of mikeys daft choices in the past, have played either in a back up mode or even as starters, but soon went down the toilet also..

If you look back at many on that list, the vast majority of them did not make past their third TC.. if that rings true, that means the draft class of 2006 is on the clock..

Time will tell how many survive the turk.

Acedude
06-09-2008, 01:17 PM
Try comparing him around the league, and let me know what you come up with.

Who's better than him? Belicheck and Dungy? Maybe Cowher before he retired...go ahead...enlighten me.

Put any HC in the League as HC of Denver, and they'd do just as well as Shanahan. Shanahan is nothing special. It's ludicrous to pretend like Shanahan is something special. He's a joke by elite standards, he's just a middle of the road HC. He's a top ten OC, beyond that ability level he's middle of the pack at best.

MOtorboat
06-09-2008, 01:25 PM
Put any HC in the League as HC of Denver, and they'd do just as well as Shanahan. Shanahan is nothing special. It's ludicrous to pretend like Shanahan is something special. He's a joke by elite standards, he's just a middle of the road HC. He's a top ten OC, beyond that ability level he's middle of the pack at best.

Um, ok.

Ziggy
06-09-2008, 01:43 PM
Put any HC in the League as HC of Denver, and they'd do just as well as Shanahan. Shanahan is nothing special. It's ludicrous to pretend like Shanahan is something special. He's a joke by elite standards, he's just a middle of the road HC. He's a top ten OC, beyond that ability level he's middle of the pack at best.

Yes, because so many of the head coaches in the history of the NFL have won 2 Super Bowls. If you want to come in here and talk smack, back it up with some facts. Otherwise, you're just considered another 12 year old Maddenite with diarrhea of the mouth. Shanahan had a top tier team talent-wise for 3 years, and won Super Bowls 2 of those 3 years. Since 98, the talent has been diminished. Even in the AFCCG in 2005 this team had inferior talent, yet as a head coach he still finds a way to be competitive and put a good product on the field. 2 losing seasons out of 13. Do some research and show us how many coaches with at least a 13 year tenure have had less than 2 losing seasons.

MOtorboat
06-09-2008, 01:56 PM
5th in Winning Percentage amongst active coaches. 30th All time.

List of Coaches to win two Super Bowls:
Chuck Noll
Joe Gibbs
Bill Belichick
Bill Walsh
George Seifert
Don Shula
Bill Parcells
Vince Lombardi
Jimmy Johnson
Tom Flores
Tom Landry
Mike Shanahan

Lonestar
06-09-2008, 01:56 PM
AGAIN!

You can't say we suck at drafting when you NEVER compare it to anything other than itself. That's not a good comparison.

And weren't we talking about coaching and not drafting, or are you deflecting the issue now?


So just what would you compare it to..

Many want to know why Pat put up with mikey, I don't think that many have issue with his coaching prowess but most believe he has issues with his PAST drafting prowess.


And since he is in charge of all of it and that is why it ties together in mikeys case is is all or none..

MOtorboat
06-09-2008, 01:59 PM
So just what would you compare it to..

Many want to know why Pat put up with mikey, I don't think that many have issue with his coaching prowess but most believe he has issues with his PAST drafting prowess.


And since he is in charge of all of it and that is why it ties together in mikeys case is is all or none..

Not once have you compared Mike's drafting to that of other teams. When you go do so, and if it's as bad as you say, I'll believe you, but just listing draft picks and saying, see, it sucks, doesn't hold a lot of weight to me.

Lonestar
06-09-2008, 02:14 PM
Not once have you compared Mike's drafting to that of other teams. When you go do so, and if it's as bad as you say, I'll believe you, but just listing draft picks and saying, see, it sucks, doesn't hold a lot of weight to me.

their have been many posts on this and a thread or two about an indent pent survey done on our drafting and If memory serves correct we got a d or worse during the dark days 2000-2004..

I really believe that you know this in your own heart..

Just looking at the list I just pasted in you can see how pathetic a couple of those years were..

I have always said mikey won more games that he should have considering the talent and assistant coaching levels he had on this franchise..

If you or anyone else do not see it, then we will have to agree to disagree.. Not an issue for me.. I do not believe that anyone save few (bungals,brownies, or dolts fans) on here are any less Bronco fans than I am..

We just see thing from a different perspective..

Acedude
06-09-2008, 02:15 PM
Yes, because so many of the head coaches in the history of the NFL have won 2 Super Bowls. If you want to come in here and talk smack, back it up with some facts. Otherwise, you're just considered another 12 year old Maddenite with diarrhea of the mouth. Shanahan had a top tier team talent-wise for 3 years, and won Super Bowls 2 of those 3 years. Since 98, the talent has been diminished. Even in the AFCCG in 2005 this team had inferior talent, yet as a head coach he still finds a way to be competitive and put a good product on the field. 2 losing seasons out of 13. Do some research and show us how many coaches with at least a 13 year tenure have had less than 2 losing seasons.

Are you gonna cry? You sound like you're about to cry. The facts are one playoff win in the past nine seasons. One AFC West Title in the past nine seasons. Shanahan was an elite HC nine seasons ago, he's not now.

MOtorboat
06-09-2008, 02:26 PM
their have been many posts on this and a thread or two about an indent pent survey done on our drafting and If memory serves correct we got a d or worse during the dark days 2000-2004..

I really believe that you know this in your own heart..

Just looking at the list I just pasted in you can see how pathetic a couple of those years were..

I have always said mikey won more games that he should have considering the talent and assistant coaching levels he had on this franchise..

If you or anyone else do not see it, then we will have to agree to disagree.. Not an issue for me.. I do not believe that anyone save few (bungals,brownies, or dolts fans) on here are any less Bronco fans than I am..

We just see thing from a different perspective..

So...still no real comparison...

Definitely agree to disagree.

Acedude
06-09-2008, 02:31 PM
Though our drafting woes in the past are obvious, I believe our drafting in the last 3 years have been a great improvement.

2006 was a great draft. 2007 wasn't so great. Traded too much for too little. Crowder was a solid pick. Moss was not worth what they paid for him, he'll never be the expected elite DE. Thomas is a toss-up considering they traded a 2008 third to get him. Ryan Harris had to have BACK SURGERY his rookie year and everybody knew he had a bad back coming into the draft.

2008 looks ok on paper, we have to wait for this season at least to see how much game these draftees have.

Tned
06-09-2008, 02:34 PM
I see YOU as not being objective. "Love is blind".

Clearly you need glasses, can I recommend an optometrist for you???

Acedude
06-09-2008, 05:47 PM
Clearly you need glasses, can I recommend an optometrist for you???

Heck, you're the man blindly in love, so yeah, I'm sure you could find a good optometrist. ;)

Actually, I could argue the same points you, Ziggy, Missouri, et al, have been making regarding Shanahan. It's a bit of a tossup where Shanahan is concerned. I can argue either side of the coin. He has his good points, he has his bad points. I'm very disappointed in him because he's a bag of hot air. I bought into his BS years ago only to see the team fade badly down the stretch, barely scrape into the playoffs, then get the snot kicked out of them in the playoffs.

I was so disappointed in 2006 when all they had to do was beat SF at home in game 16 to make the playoffs. A great HC drives his team to victory in that game, he kicks them in the butt, calls in all bets. Instead, KC - KC - takes Denver's playoff spot. A great HC drives the team through sheer force of will to win the final game of the season at home to win a playoff berth. Shanny could not.

Then he hires washed up Jim Bates, out of football for a year, to resurrect the D, blows smoke up everybody's ass again. Jim Bates? A guy that couldn't find a job in the NFL in 2006? Shanny makes him the Assistant Head Coach? I had a good laugh over that, and sure enough the Bronco D was an embarassment, the worst Denver D in 40 years.

On the other hand, he's had pretty consistent over-.500 seasons. That's a little something to hang your hat on. He did have B2B League Titles, that's certainly something to hang your hat on. As for 2007, I can argue Shanny put together a darn good O along with a good hiring in 'Dinger to help him. Shanny also hired O'Brien for ST's, and I think that was a good hire.

So I can argue either side of the coin. He's ok, I can understand why Bowlen and you guys don't want to see him go. Theoretically, Shanny can win B2B League Titles again, I can see that. He has a good formula.

But I'm not in love with the guy like some of you. One AFC West Title in the past nine seasons, one playoff victory in the past nine seasons, that stinks by Bronco standards. I'm sorry, but I can't get past those facts. I can't make that look better by showing all those over-.500 seasons.

MOtorboat
06-09-2008, 06:01 PM
Heck, you're the man blindly in love, so yeah, I'm sure you could find a good optometrist. ;)

Actually, I could argue the same points you, Ziggy, Missouri, et al, have been making regarding Shanahan. It's a bit of a tossup where Shanahan is concerned. I can argue either side of the coin. He has his good points, he has his bad points. I'm very disappointed in him because he's a bag of hot air. I bought into his BS years ago only to see the team fade badly down the stretch, barely scrape into the playoffs, then get the snot kicked out of them in the playoffs.

I was so disappointed in 2006 when all they had to do was beat SF at home in game 16 to make the playoffs. A great HC drives his team to victory in that game, he kicks them in the butt, calls in all bets. Instead, KC - KC - takes Denver's playoff spot. A great HC drives the team through sheer force of will to win the final game of the season at home to win a playoff berth. Shanny could not.

Then he hires washed up Jim Bates, out of football for a year, to resurrect the D, blows smoke up everybody's ass again. Jim Bates? A guy that couldn't find a job in the NFL in 2006? Shanny makes him the Assistant Head Coach? I had a good laugh over that, and sure enough the Bronco D was an embarassment, the worst Denver D in 40 years.

On the other hand, he's had pretty consistent over-.500 seasons. That's a little something to hang your hat on. He did have B2B League Titles, that's certainly something to hang your hat on. As for 2007, I can argue Shanny put together a darn good O along with a good hiring in 'Dinger to help him. Shanny also hired O'Brien for ST's, and I think that was a good hire.

So I can argue either side of the coin. He's ok, I can understand why Bowlen and you guys don't want to see him go. Theoretically, Shanny can win B2B League Titles again, I can see that. He has a good formula.

But I'm not in love with the guy like some of you. One AFC West Title in the past nine seasons, one playoff victory in the past nine seasons, that stinks by Bronco standards. I'm sorry, but I can't get past those facts. I can't make that look better by showing all those over-.500 seasons.

I'm not in love with him either. I was disappointed in every single one of those things.

Please tell me who you'd hire when you fired Mike Shanahan.

Every time I ask myself that...I come up with..."no, I don't want to get rid of him for any of those guys."

Broncospsycho77
06-09-2008, 06:07 PM
Heck, you're the man blindly in love, so yeah, I'm sure you could find a good optometrist. ;)

Actually, I could argue the same points you, Ziggy, Missouri, et al, have been making regarding Shanahan. It's a bit of a tossup where Shanahan is concerned. I can argue either side of the coin. He has his good points, he has his bad points. I'm very disappointed in him because he's a bag of hot air. I bought into his BS years ago only to see the team fade badly down the stretch, barely scrape into the playoffs, then get the snot kicked out of them in the playoffs.

I was so disappointed in 2006 when all they had to do was beat SF at home in game 16 to make the playoffs. A great HC drives his team to victory in that game, he kicks them in the butt, calls in all bets. Instead, KC - KC - takes Denver's playoff spot. A great HC drives the team through sheer force of will to win the final game of the season at home to win a playoff berth. Shanny could not.

Then he hires washed up Jim Bates, out of football for a year, to resurrect the D, blows smoke up everybody's ass again. Jim Bates? A guy that couldn't find a job in the NFL in 2006? Shanny makes him the Assistant Head Coach? I had a good laugh over that, and sure enough the Bronco D was an embarassment, the worst Denver D in 40 years.

On the other hand, he's had pretty consistent over-.500 seasons. That's a little something to hang your hat on. He did have B2B League Titles, that's certainly something to hang your hat on. As for 2007, I can argue Shanny put together a darn good O along with a good hiring in 'Dinger to help him. Shanny also hired O'Brien for ST's, and I think that was a good hire.

So I can argue either side of the coin. He's ok, I can understand why Bowlen and you guys don't want to see him go. Theoretically, Shanny can win B2B League Titles again, I can see that. He has a good formula.

But I'm not in love with the guy like some of you. One AFC West Title in the past nine seasons, one playoff victory in the past nine seasons, that stinks by Bronco standards. I'm sorry, but I can't get past those facts. I can't make that look better by showing all those over-.500 seasons.

I can definitely see your point of view. Really, a lot of the differences between pro and anti-Shanny deal with the "definition" of a coach, or what a coach is supposed to do.

Some coaches are master motivators, like Bill Cowher and countless others. These are the kinds of coaches that Acedude would want in a situation like the SF game, where they can get the best out of their players in the clutch. This is great for many young teams, which, in Broncos past, haven't been a necessity, but could be helpful now, though only up to a point.

Shanahan, IMO, is different. He expects his players to already be mature and able to achieve their best, day after day. He gives a zero-tolerance policy (see: Clinton Portis) both on and off the field, and wants his players to be a class act. He doesn't need to motivate; Shanahan looks for players who already have plenty of that.

Shanahan's specialty is finding those guys with the motivation, but lacking the refinement and athletic coaching to unleash their motivation on the field (see: any late round RB, Rod Smith, Eddy Mac). For these players, Shanahan is the perfect fit, which can be annoying at some times to fans, since Shanahan may shy away from the guy with the obvious talent, but without the motivation.

Also, it doesn't hurt for Shanahan to have a great offensive knowledge of schemes being able to trick defenses without actually tricking them; this being using different formations of the same play, which was nonexistant in the Jake Plummer and Dinger eras...

That's my theory, anyway...

Ricky
06-09-2008, 06:55 PM
Hi guys,
I haven't been around much lately. I needed time to relax.
Anyway, who is Mike Shannahan? I am sure he is still the same guy that was brought into Denver to help the Broncos get over the hump and win a Super Bowl (he did it twice). He is the same guy that spent time with Steve Young, helping him to forget his time in Tampa Bay and become a great team leader. He is the same guy that even a dork like Al Davis could see turning the faders into a contender (he just hated someone who wanted some control). Shanny is the same guy that Dan Reeves thought would make a kid named John a pro-bowl quarterback. Who is Mike Shannahan? He is the best coach the Broncos have had. Has his time passed? I am glad I don't have to make that call.

Ricky

Acedude
06-09-2008, 07:25 PM
I'm not in love with him either. I was disappointed in every single one of those things.

Please tell me who you'd hire when you fired Mike Shanahan.

Every time I ask myself that...I come up with..."no, I don't want to get rid of him for any of those guys."

Your question is bogus. I'm not the boss of Shanahan. If I was, I'd find a solution to the doldrums.

MOtorboat
06-09-2008, 07:27 PM
Your question is bogus. I'm not the boss of Shanahan. If I was, I'd find a solution to the doldrums.

Um, well, OK, one question isn't answerable. The other is, which you failed to answer.

Who else do you want?

Besides, why are we even discussing this...none of us make any decisions. Stupid statement.

If you don't want to participate in the what-if world of a message board, why are you even participating?

Maybe that post was meant to avoid the question?

Skinny
06-09-2008, 07:30 PM
I'd get on my hands and knees and beg Gary Kubiak to coach my Broncos. If Mikey was fired or whatever.

Just thinkin out loud.

Acedude
06-09-2008, 07:39 PM
Hi guys,
I haven't been around much lately. I needed time to relax.
Anyway, who is Mike Shannahan? I am sure he is still the same guy that was brought into Denver to help the Broncos get over the hump and win a Super Bowl (he did it twice). He is the same guy that spent time with Steve Young, helping him to forget his time in Tampa Bay and become a great team leader. He is the same guy that even a dork like Al Davis could see turning the faders into a contender (he just hated someone who wanted some control). Shanny is the same guy that Dan Reeves thought would make a kid named John a pro-bowl quarterback. Who is Mike Shannahan? He is the best coach the Broncos have had. Has his time passed? I am glad I don't have to make that call.
Ricky

Me either. Tough call.

Acedude
06-09-2008, 07:52 PM
Um, well, OK, one question isn't answerable. The other is, which you failed to answer.

Who else do you want?

Besides, why are we even discussing this...none of us make any decisions. Stupid statement.

If you don't want to participate in the what-if world of a message board, why are you even participating?

Maybe that post was meant to avoid the question?

If I were the boss of Shanahan, I'd make it my business to find a new HC. I'd evaluate every OC and DC in the NFL, and make a decision. It would be tough to make the decision, since Shanny has a track record of success. I'd evaluate fired HC's also. I'd lean toward a young guy - an OC or DC.

Who that would be, I don't know - does that answer your question? It's a tough question to answer, right? That's a big decision to make, and not mine to make. But I'd sure be looking around if I were Bowlen, and I'd sure pull the trigger if I saw someone I liked. Shanahan's best days are behind him with the Broncos.

I could be wrong, like I said before I can argue it either way, but my gut feeling is Shanny's best days are behind him.

Ricky
06-09-2008, 07:54 PM
I'd get on my hands and knees and beg Gary Kubiak to coach my Broncos. If Mikey was fired or whatever.

Just thinkin out loud.

I could agree with that. It is not like Houston is getting worse each year. They do have an upward trend.

Tned
06-09-2008, 07:54 PM
Heck, you're the man blindly in love, so yeah, I'm sure you could find a good optometrist. ;)

Actually, I could argue the same points you, Ziggy, Missouri, et al, have been making regarding Shanahan. It's a bit of a tossup where Shanahan is concerned. I can argue either side of the coin. He has his good points, he has his bad points. I'm very disappointed in him because he's a bag of hot air. I bought into his BS years ago only to see the team fade badly down the stretch, barely scrape into the playoffs, then get the snot kicked out of them in the playoffs.

I'm not in love with him, I am very passionate about the Broncos and he is the coach.

I guess the reason I don't go through the same highs and lows as some of you guys, is that I realize that Shanahan, like every coach, is going to focus more on the positve and what 'could be' rather than spew doom and gloom. About the only exception to that rule is when teams are truely horrendous and will be lucky to win 3-5 games (in the NFL, vs. MLB and other sports). In this thread, or another, I gave the example of Lovie Smith taking over the Bears and saying something like his only goal was to beat the Packers. When expectations are nil, you can be less 'positive'.

However, when you have a team that is virtually always over .500, that means it is a team that always has a shot at the playoffs, which means it always has a shot to do something in the playoffs. In that situation, the coach is going to focus on the things the team has done to get them into the playoffs and beyond.

I am blown away how some of you could even say, "I bought into his BS years" and be upset about what he has said, because THAT'S WHAT COACHES DO. Listen to a Baseball coach, NBA coach, etc. and you are gong to hear similar things. If they are a .500 plus team, they will be talking about getting into the playoffs and beyond, if they are a little below .500, they will be talking about how they think they have the pieces in place to 'get over the hump', and if they are a dismal team (2-5 wins in the NFL, 20 games under .500 in MLB, etc.), they are going to talk some variation of 'rebuilding' language.

The head coach is supposed to be 'honest' with the owner, not the fans. His job is to give 'enough' information to create excitement about the changes/direction the team is moving in. You guys aren't stock holders of a public company that require 'disclosures'.

As I said, I am blown away by the "he fooled me once, never again" talk, because it is simply ludicrous when referring to head coaches/managers of sports teams.


But I'm not in love with the guy like some of you. One AFC West Title in the past nine seasons, one playoff victory in the past nine seasons, that stinks by Bronco standards. I'm sorry, but I can't get past those facts. I can't make that look better by showing all those over-.500 seasons.

Yes, on playoff victory in 9 seasons sucks, but on the other hand 2 losing seasons in 13 years is just short of amazing.

What Shanahan has managed to do, which almost no other coach has in recent history (FA era), is to rebuild the team multiple times, without going through a ture 'rebuilding' period. Check out Dallas, SF and virtually every other team. They have a SB run, and then lose players to FA and then hit a lull, and go through a period of 2-6 win seasons, where they get high draft picks and eventually emerge (sometimes in a few years, and sometimes it takes much longer.

Shanahan has managed to avoid those rebuilding periods, by rebuilding on the fly, turning the roster over about two complete turns over his 13 years. I believe one of the side effects of this approach is he tends to 'reach' more than some coaches/GM's. He will get a player in the twighlight of his career, and hope he gets one or two good years out of him; he will reach for a player in the draft, because he never has a 'sure thing' draft pick, and is trying to compete 'this year' rather than build for the future.

Would it be better if the Broncos Shanahan had sacrificed some current seasons, and the Broncos went through more traditional NFL rebuilding cycles? Maybe? Hard to say. For some fans, they would rather see the Broncos have two or three low single digit seasons, if it meant a better chance at getting youg players that 'could' help the team become dominant. On the other hand, there are some fans that would rather be over .500 virtually every year and never experience the 2-5 win seasons, even if it means there is less chance of drafting super stars that could result in a year or two of dominance, before restarting the cycle.

Just because some of us have different views of what Shanahan has done, doesn't mean we are in love with him or have some kind of man crush.

Acedude
06-09-2008, 08:30 PM
I can definitely see your point of view. Really, a lot of the differences between pro and anti-Shanny deal with the "definition" of a coach, or what a coach is supposed to do.

Some coaches are master motivators, like Bill Cowher and countless others. These are the kinds of coaches that Acedude would want in a situation like the SF game, where they can get the best out of their players in the clutch. This is great for many young teams, which, in Broncos past, haven't been a necessity, but could be helpful now, though only up to a point.

Shanahan, IMO, is different. He expects his players to already be mature and able to achieve their best, day after day. He gives a zero-tolerance policy (see: Clinton Portis) both on and off the field, and wants his players to be a class act. He doesn't need to motivate; Shanahan looks for players who already have plenty of that.

Shanahan's specialty is finding those guys with the motivation, but lacking the refinement and athletic coaching to unleash their motivation on the field (see: any late round RB, Rod Smith, Eddy Mac). For these players, Shanahan is the perfect fit, which can be annoying at some times to fans, since Shanahan may shy away from the guy with the obvious talent, but without the motivation.

Also, it doesn't hurt for Shanahan to have a great offensive knowledge of schemes being able to trick defenses without actually tricking them; this being using different formations of the same play, which was nonexistant in the Jake Plummer and Dinger eras...

That's my theory, anyway...

I hold grudges longer than most people. Maybe that's the difference between me and others. Man, Shanny has pissed me off so often and not rewarded me much, I'm ready to torch him anytime. Like I just did.

Now, to reply to your post (heh-heh). Shanny has brought in plenty of vets that were supposedly self-motivated, and still didn't get the team over the hump. Good Lord, Leon Lett, Raylee Johnson, Jerry Rice, Seth Joyner, Robert Brooks, Chuck Williams, Lee Woodward, the DT from Detroit, the DE from Dallas. I listened to Shanny run his BS on the radio the other day, here listen to it:

http://www.fm1043thefan.com/theSportsGuys/podcasts.cfm

Shanahan kisses his own ass too much.

Jwalk - JayCutty6Goes - CasinoRoyal
06-09-2008, 08:34 PM
If not Shanny then who??? The only other guy i like is Holmgren.

Acedude
06-09-2008, 08:59 PM
I'm not in love with him, I am very passionate about the Broncos and he is the coach.

I guess the reason I don't go through the same highs and lows as some of you guys, is that I realize that Shanahan, like every coach, is going to focus more on the positve and what 'could be' rather than spew doom and gloom. About the only exception to that rule is when teams are truely horrendous and will be lucky to win 3-5 games (in the NFL, vs. MLB and other sports). In this thread, or another, I gave the example of Lovie Smith taking over the Bears and saying something like his only goal was to beat the Packers. When expectations are nil, you can be less 'positive'.

However, when you have a team that is virtually always over .500, that means it is a team that always has a shot at the playoffs, which means it always has a shot to do something in the playoffs. In that situation, the coach is going to focus on the things the team has done to get them into the playoffs and beyond.

I am blown away how some of you could even say, "I bought into his BS years" and be upset about what he has said, because THAT'S WHAT COACHES DO. Listen to a Baseball coach, NBA coach, etc. and you are gong to hear similar things. If they are a .500 plus team, they will be talking about getting into the playoffs and beyond, if they are a little below .500, they will be talking about how they think they have the pieces in place to 'get over the hump', and if they are a dismal team (2-5 wins in the NFL, 20 games under .500 in MLB, etc.), they are going to talk some variation of 'rebuilding' language.

The head coach is supposed to be 'honest' with the owner, not the fans. His job is to give 'enough' information to create excitement about the changes/direction the team is moving in. You guys aren't stock holders of a public company that require 'disclosures'.

As I said, I am blown away by the "he fooled me once, never again" talk, because it is simply ludicrous when referring to head coaches/managers of sports teams.



Yes, on playoff victory in 9 seasons sucks, but on the other hand 2 losing seasons in 13 years is just short of amazing.

What Shanahan has managed to do, which almost no other coach has in recent history (FA era), is to rebuild the team multiple times, without going through a ture 'rebuilding' period. Check out Dallas, SF and virtually every other team. They have a SB run, and then lose players to FA and then hit a lull, and go through a period of 2-6 win seasons, where they get high draft picks and eventually emerge (sometimes in a few years, and sometimes it takes much longer.

Shanahan has managed to avoid those rebuilding periods, by rebuilding on the fly, turning the roster over about two complete turns over his 13 years. I believe one of the side effects of this approach is he tends to 'reach' more than some coaches/GM's. He will get a player in the twighlight of his career, and hope he gets one or two good years out of him; he will reach for a player in the draft, because he never has a 'sure thing' draft pick, and is trying to compete 'this year' rather than build for the future.

Would it be better if the Broncos Shanahan had sacrificed some current seasons, and the Broncos went through more traditional NFL rebuilding cycles? Maybe? Hard to say. For some fans, they would rather see the Broncos have two or three low single digit seasons, if it meant a better chance at getting youg players that 'could' help the team become dominant. On the other hand, there are some fans that would rather be over .500 virtually every year and never experience the 2-5 win seasons, even if it means there is less chance of drafting super stars that could result in a year or two of dominance, before restarting the cycle.

Just because some of us have different views of what Shanahan has done, doesn't mean we are in love with him or have some kind of man crush.

You're right. It's my own fault for believing Shanahan's BS at the beginning of the season.

You said "when you have a team that is virtually always over .500, that means it is a team that always has a shot at the playoffs, which means it always has a shot to do something in the playoffs." That's what I thought also. But Shanny's teams got their ass kicked in consecutive years as completely as any team I've ever seen in the playoffs.

You make that seem like a positive for Shanahan, I see it as a negative. I could argue it same as you, but realistically, Shanny is nothing special as an HC.

I could make the same arguments as you, and make them seem just as plausible as you do, but in reality, Shanahan is nothing special. You and Ziggy, Missouri, you make good arguments, but in reality Shanahan is not special at all except as an OC.

He had those two great years, since then he's average - as an HC.

Acedude
06-09-2008, 09:06 PM
If not Shanny then who??? The only other guy i like is Holmgren.

I'm not in charge of Shanahan, but I can guarantee somebody else can do just as well or better. If I was in charge of Shanahan I'd sure be looking for a new HC. Jeez looweez, I'd sure be looking to divide some duties. If the Denver Broncos had only one AFC West Title and one playoff win in nine years, something is wrong. That hasn't happened since 1977. The worst Defense since 1967 combined with that and if I was Bowlen I'd be kicking some ass and Shanahan would be on hot coals.

Tned
06-09-2008, 09:08 PM
You're right. It's my own fault for believing Shanahan's BS at the beginning of the season.

You said "when you have a team that is virtually always over .500, that means it is a team that always has a shot at the playoffs, which means it always has a shot to do something in the playoffs." That's what I thought also. But Shanny's teams got their ass kicked in consecutive years as completely as any team I've ever seen in the playoffs.

You make that seem like a positive for Shanahan, I see it as a negative. I could argue it same as you, but realistically, Shanny is nothing special as an HC.

I could make the same arguments as you, and make them seem just as plausible as you do, but in reality, Shanahan is nothing special. You and Ziggy, Missouri, you make good arguments, but in reality Shanahan is not special at all except as an OC.

He had those two great years, since then he's average - as an HC.

Each to their own. Here's a free tip, try and avoid buying into anyone's BS and you will less likely to be dissapointed. You can thank me later.

MOtorboat
06-09-2008, 09:27 PM
He had those two great years, since then he's average - as an HC.

Average is somewhere between 12-17th in the league, right?

Then why is this team the second most winningest team under his tutelage?

Tned
06-09-2008, 09:28 PM
Average is somewhere between 12-17th in the league, right?

Then why is this team the second most winningest team under his tutelage?

It was just two good seasons, haven't you figured that out :confused:

MOtorboat
06-09-2008, 09:29 PM
It was just two good seasons, haven't you figured that out :confused:

Yeah, I'd rather root for the Lions. They've been much better.

Acedude
06-09-2008, 09:39 PM
Each to their own. Here's a free tip, try and avoid buying into anyone's BS and you will less likely to be dissapointed. You can thank me later.

I'll thank you now. You're still buying into the BS, I recommend you stop. You can thank me later.

Tned
06-09-2008, 09:43 PM
I'll thank you now. You're still buying into the BS, I recommend you stop. You can thank me later.

Know, apparently one major difference between you and I is I don't live and die by Shanny's BS, as you call it. I root for my team, as I have for a couple decades+. Just as I have with the Mets and other teams I root for.

I'm simply not stupid enough to assume that a coach, Shanahan or anyone else, is being forthright with fans or media. Therefore, I don't have to be concerned with whether or not what I am hearing is 'BS'.

Honestly, if you are in a "I've bought into it one too many times" mode, then you clearly need to get a new perspective on the NFL, Broncos and Shanahan.

Acedude
06-09-2008, 09:48 PM
Average is somewhere between 12-17th in the league, right?

Then why is this team the second most winningest team under his tutelage?

Won what? A League Title nine years ago? Won one Title since then, an AFC West Title. Marty Schottenheimer has won two AFC West Titles since 1998, Norv Turner, Jon Gruden, Bill Callahan, Dick Vermeil have all won one AFC West Title since 1998. What makes Shanahan special since 1998?

MOtorboat
06-09-2008, 10:00 PM
Won what? A League Title nine years ago? Won one Title since then, an AFC West Title. Marty Schottenheimer has won two AFC West Titles since 1998, Norv Turner, Jon Gruden, Bill Callahan, Dick Vermeil have all won one AFC West Title since 1998. What makes Shanahan special since 1998?

But, see, unlike those guys, Denver hasn't experienced the lows those coaches have had.

We haven't experienced the 6-10 that Vermeil had with the Chiefs, or the 5-11 and 4-12 Norv Turner seasons in Oakland, or the 4-12 Callahan experienced, or the 4-12 that Schottenheimer had in San Diego, or the 5-11 and 4-12 seasons Jon Gruden has had.

That's what separates Mike Shanahan from those other coaches. 7-9 hurts, but it's NOT 4-12 or 5-11. It's just not. And Denver has not experienced that with Shanahan, and I do NOT want to experience a rebuilding season by firing one of the most successful coaches in the game in the last 20 years for the unknown.

Acedude
06-09-2008, 10:01 PM
Know, apparently one major difference between you and I is I don't live and die by Shanny's BS, as you call it. I root for my team, as I have for a couple decades+. Just as I have with the Mets and other teams I root for.

I'm simply not stupid enough to assume that a coach, Shanahan or anyone else, is being forthright with fans or media. Therefore, I don't have to be concerned with whether or not what I am hearing is 'BS'.

Honestly, if you are in a "I've bought into it one too many times" mode, then you clearly need to get a new perspective on the NFL, Broncos and Shanahan.

So you're saying you don't really have a clue about the team. You just say, "we're better than other teams."

MOtorboat
06-09-2008, 10:09 PM
So you're saying you don't really have a clue about the team. You just say, "we're better than other teams."

I'm going to say that the proof is in the pudding.

Second best record in the league since Shanahan has been the teams' coach. I'd say that, yes, we are better than other teams.

Had one down year...I have faith in Cutler, and our young core now, and I expect this team to be in the playoffs this season, and a contender in two years.

If it's not, then yes, maybe it is time to start thinking about replacing Shanahan. But one sub-.500 season is not a reason to go replacing a hall of fame coach.

Denver Native (Carol)
06-09-2008, 10:09 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3299579

Shanahan's his man as Bowlen discusses reasons for GM's firing


DENVER -- In the week since firing longtime general manager Ted Sundquist, Broncos coach Mike Shanahan has been criticized as not holding himself accountable enough for Denver's 7-9 season.

He's here and he's going to stay here.

-- Broncos owner Pat Bowlen, on coach Mike Shanahan

When Sundquist's dismissal was announced last Wednesday, Shanahan offered nothing more than a brief statement reflecting on the GM's contributions to the franchise. "I am grateful to Ted for all his hard work and efforts on behalf of the Broncos for the past 16 years," the statement read.

But in an interview with The Denver Post, team owner Pat Bowlen cited a poor relationship between GM and coach that led to Sundquist's ouster.

"There was in my mind a dysfunctional relationship between the head coach and the general manager," Bowlen told the newspaper for Tuesday's editions. "Not that they didn't like each other. It just didn't seem the proper chemistry was there. I'm not blaming either party.

"Ted was an important part of the equation, but there had to be a good communication there or else it wasn't going to be satisfactory to me."

Bowlen also said that while Shanahan is expected to make such personnel decisions in his dual role as executive vice president of football operations, the call wasn't the coach's alone.

"The changes you see are changes that I told Mike he's got to make," Bowlen told The Post. "I wasn't specific with him. I didn't say, 'Mike, you've got to fire your defensive coordinator.' I'm not going to start making those kinds of calls.

"But we both agreed we needed to make significant changes across the board, including in the locker room. So we've been going through that process and I'm comfortable with where we're at."

The Broncos missed the playoffs for a second straight year, released receiver Javon Walker and linebacker Ian Gold in the offseason, and experienced turnover at both coordinator positions for the third year in a row.

" ... We had a bad season, a 7-9 season in a relatively dysfunctional locker room and a coaching staff that I think everybody would agree was not in sync," Bowlen said, according to The Post.

"When the season was over, Mike and I had a number of discussions of how we were going to right the ship. It went from players to coaches to football personnel. That's just part of what you do, because I'm not in this business to have seasons like we did last season."

Sundquist, 45, became general manager in 2002 after 10 years in a player personnel role for the team. As GM, he supervised pro and college scouting and was responsible for salary cap and contract analysis.

Denver reached the playoffs three times under Sundquist's watch, including an appearance in the AFC Championship Game against Pittsburgh following the 2005 season, when the Broncos won 13 games.

Bowlen reiterated his belief that Shanahan, who's coached the Broncos since 1995, can be effective both on the field and in the front office.

"He's here and he's going to stay here," Bowlen told The Post. "Nobody, I can tell you nobody in this building, myself included, is more concerned and more attentive to what the heck's happened here and how we get back on top than Mike Shanahan."

Tned
06-09-2008, 10:34 PM
So you're saying you don't really have a clue about the team. You just say, "we're better than other teams."

Ok, your that 'type'. Doesn't matter what is typed, you ignore it and make ridiculous statements.

"Dude, you should have bought a Dell"

I think you and the ex-Dell dude have been partaking in the same bad habits...

Acedude
06-09-2008, 10:38 PM
But, see, unlike those guys, Denver hasn't experienced the lows those coaches have had.

We haven't experienced the 6-10 that Vermeil had with the Chiefs, or the 5-11 and 4-12 Norv Turner seasons in Oakland, or the 4-12 Callahan experienced, or the 4-12 that Schottenheimer had in San Diego, or the 5-11 and 4-12 seasons Jon Gruden has had.

That's what separates Mike Shanahan from those other coaches. 7-9 hurts, but it's NOT 4-12 or 5-11. It's just not. And Denver has not experienced that with Shanahan, and I do NOT want to experience a rebuilding season by firing one of the most successful coaches in the game in the last 20 years for the unknown.

Show me the Titles. I'm tired of almost. Show me some Titles and some playoff wins. Denver 1977-1998 used to be about Titles and playoff wins. No longer. Denver since 1998 is remembered for their playoff losses. You're living off past glory.

BeefStew25
06-09-2008, 10:41 PM
Show me the Titles. I'm tired of almost. Show me some Titles and some playoff wins. Denver 1977-1998 used to be about Titles and playoff wins. No longer. Denver since 1998 is remembered for their playoff losses. You're living off past glory.

I'll wait it out. I'm not going anywhere.

Acedude
06-09-2008, 10:42 PM
Ok, your that 'type'. Doesn't matter what is typed, you ignore it and make ridiculous statements.

"Dude, you should have bought a Dell"

I think you and the ex-Dell dude have been partaking in the same bad habits...

You're no different than me. You ignore what I 'type' and make ridiculous statements.

MOtorboat
06-09-2008, 10:46 PM
I'll wait it out. I'm not going anywhere.

Because we're the only team of all 32 who is trying.

I mean, how dare those ******** for trying.

Acedude
06-09-2008, 10:55 PM
I'm going to say that the proof is in the pudding.

Second best record in the league since Shanahan has been the teams' coach. I'd say that, yes, we are better than other teams.

Had one down year...I have faith in Cutler, and our young core now, and I expect this team to be in the playoffs this season, and a contender in two years.

If it's not, then yes, maybe it is time to start thinking about replacing Shanahan. But one sub-.500 season is not a reason to go replacing a hall of fame coach.

It's possible Denver can go on a roll, win say 3 out of the next 5-6 AFC West Titles, win say 1-2 AFC Titles in the next 5-6 years. It's very possible since Denver has a QB. Show it to me and then I'll stop bagging on Shanahan. Until then I don't see why I should be kissing Shanahan's feet. He's not all that special since 1998. So what if he finished second in the AFC West a couple times, got a wild card berth then got smoked in the playoffs. What's so special about that?

MOtorboat
06-09-2008, 10:59 PM
It's possible Denver can go on a roll, win say 3 out of the next 5-6 AFC West Titles, win say 1-2 AFC Titles in the next 5-6 years. It's very possible since Denver has a QB. Show it to me and then I'll stop bagging on Shanahan. Until then I don't see why I should be kissing Shanahan's feet. He's not all that special since 1998. So what if he finished second in the AFC West a couple times, got a wild card berth then got smoked in the playoffs. What's so special about that?

None of us are kissing his feet. We are just pointing out that we are much better off with Shanahan than the other yahoos coaching in this league, or yahoos available to coach this team.

No one is swinging from his nuts, as you imply, simply stating that it's not time to panic, as you clearly are doing.

Acedude
06-09-2008, 11:03 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3299579

Shanahan's his man as Bowlen discusses reasons for GM's firing


DENVER -- In the week since firing longtime general manager Ted Sundquist, Broncos coach Mike Shanahan has been criticized as not holding himself accountable enough for Denver's 7-9 season.

He's here and he's going to stay here.

-- Broncos owner Pat Bowlen, on coach Mike Shanahan

When Sundquist's dismissal was announced last Wednesday, Shanahan offered nothing more than a brief statement reflecting on the GM's contributions to the franchise. "I am grateful to Ted for all his hard work and efforts on behalf of the Broncos for the past 16 years," the statement read.

But in an interview with The Denver Post, team owner Pat Bowlen cited a poor relationship between GM and coach that led to Sundquist's ouster.

"There was in my mind a dysfunctional relationship between the head coach and the general manager," Bowlen told the newspaper for Tuesday's editions. "Not that they didn't like each other. It just didn't seem the proper chemistry was there. I'm not blaming either party.

"Ted was an important part of the equation, but there had to be a good communication there or else it wasn't going to be satisfactory to me."

Bowlen also said that while Shanahan is expected to make such personnel decisions in his dual role as executive vice president of football operations, the call wasn't the coach's alone.

"The changes you see are changes that I told Mike he's got to make," Bowlen told The Post. "I wasn't specific with him. I didn't say, 'Mike, you've got to fire your defensive coordinator.' I'm not going to start making those kinds of calls.

"But we both agreed we needed to make significant changes across the board, including in the locker room. So we've been going through that process and I'm comfortable with where we're at."

The Broncos missed the playoffs for a second straight year, released receiver Javon Walker and linebacker Ian Gold in the offseason, and experienced turnover at both coordinator positions for the third year in a row.

" ... We had a bad season, a 7-9 season in a relatively dysfunctional locker room and a coaching staff that I think everybody would agree was not in sync," Bowlen said, according to The Post.

"When the season was over, Mike and I had a number of discussions of how we were going to right the ship. It went from players to coaches to football personnel. That's just part of what you do, because I'm not in this business to have seasons like we did last season."

Sundquist, 45, became general manager in 2002 after 10 years in a player personnel role for the team. As GM, he supervised pro and college scouting and was responsible for salary cap and contract analysis.

Denver reached the playoffs three times under Sundquist's watch, including an appearance in the AFC Championship Game against Pittsburgh following the 2005 season, when the Broncos won 13 games.

Bowlen reiterated his belief that Shanahan, who's coached the Broncos since 1995, can be effective both on the field and in the front office.

"He's here and he's going to stay here," Bowlen told The Post. "Nobody, I can tell you nobody in this building, myself included, is more concerned and more attentive to what the heck's happened here and how we get back on top than Mike Shanahan."

Then Shanahan is gonna have to put some Title banners up at Invesco. Otherwise, what's the point in keeping him around? So him and Bowlen can diddle each other while they look at the Lombardi's?

Denver Native (Carol)
06-09-2008, 11:05 PM
Then Shanahan is gonna have to put some Title banners up at Invesco. Otherwise, what's the point in keeping him around? So him and Bowlen can diddle each other while they look at the Lombardi's?

I'm sure there are other teams out there who would love having two title banners to put up.

broncogirl7
06-09-2008, 11:11 PM
Bowlen has faith in Shanahan and his vision. I will have faith in Shanahan and what he envisions for the Broncos in the future!

Acedude
06-09-2008, 11:16 PM
None of us are kissing his feet. We are just pointing out that we are much better off with Shanahan than the other yahoos coaching in this league, or yahoos available to coach this team.

No one is swinging from his nuts, as you imply, simply stating that it's not time to panic, as you clearly are doing.

Hey, I'm sick of mediocrity. Show me some Titles, and show them to me quick. One AFC West Title and one playoff win (in the same season) since 1998 is pretty sorry. I'm tired of potential, wait til next year, if it wasn't for injuries, blah, blah, blah. Show me some Titles, and show them to me quick. I don't see the point in sticking with an HC and grand poobah that can't win Titles. You have to move on at some point.

Acedude
06-09-2008, 11:20 PM
I'm sure there are other teams out there who would love having two title banners to put up.

SD has 3 Title banners hanging just in the past 4 years. The League Title is not the only Title you can win, you know.

MOtorboat
06-09-2008, 11:25 PM
SD has 3 Title banners hanging just in the past 4 years. The League Title is not the only Title you can win, you know.

They also have one playoff win in 14 years...Oh, the humanity!...why can't we be them?

Acedude
06-09-2008, 11:40 PM
They also have one playoff win in 14 years...Oh, the humanity!...why can't we be them?

Three AFC West Title banners in their stadium from the past 4 years as opposed to hanging in ours is not so good. It's kind of 'in your face' type of situation. They won the Division 3 out of past 4 years, they pretty much kicked our asses regardless of how many playoff wins they had. They did that with two different QB's, two different HC's, and two different GM's.

MOtorboat
06-09-2008, 11:48 PM
Three AFC West Title banners in their stadium from the past 4 years as opposed to hanging in ours is not so good. It's kind of 'in your face' type of situation. They won the Division 3 out of past 4 years, they pretty much kicked our asses regardless of how many playoff wins they had. They did that with two different QB's, two different HC's, and two different GM's.

And yet...we have the same number of playoff wins.

Again...not worried.

Acedude
06-10-2008, 12:16 AM
And yet...we have the same number of playoff wins.

Again...not worried.

If I was an SD fan I'd be pissed about their lack of playoff wins. But the Title banners, man, you can't discount them. It's a big deal. You have that Division Title banner hanging, that means you ruled something. The NFL only awards 8 each year. Consecutive Division Titles is a real big deal. 3 out of 4 years is - dare I say it? - a really big deal. I'd like to be on that end of the really big deal.

NightTrainLayne
06-10-2008, 12:25 AM
If I was an SD fan I'd be pissed about their lack of playoff wins. But the Title banners, man, you can't discount them. It's a big deal. You have that Division Title banner hanging, that means you ruled something. The NFL only awards 8 each year. Consecutive Division Titles is a real big deal. 3 out of 4 years is - dare I say it? - a really big deal. I'd like to be on that end of the really big deal.

One out of every four teams gets one each year. Whoop-de-Freakin'-do.

I'll concentrate on the Super-Bowl wins.

Granted, getting Division titles helps on the way, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

rcsodak
06-10-2008, 12:40 AM
Why Is Bowlen So Loyal To Shanahan?

Since John Elway’s retirement, the Broncos have won exactly 1 playoff game in 9 seasons. In the 2007 season, they won less than half of the games they played. They have made endless personnel mistakes, and paid big money contracts to players who seemed to contribute more to the team’s failures than successes. Dale Carter, Darrel Gardner, Simeon Rice, Javon Walker, Jimmy Kennedy, and others have made many wonder if Mike Shanahan and his staff have a clue about how to evaluate NFL veteran talent. 24 of the 34 players drafted by Denver between 2001-2004 no longer play in the NFL. Only 2 of the 10 that are left in the NFL are still with the team, making many wonder if Mike Shanahan and his staff have a clue about how to evaluate college talent. Why in the world would Pat Bowlen keep paying Mike Shanahan millions of dollars to run this organization? Anyone? Anyone? I’m going to attempt to answer this question with some facts, statistics, and a question.

Free agents and draft picks in the NFL are gambles. Free agents and rookies are given signing bonuses and a contract. Signing bonuses are guaranteed, and a portion of the contracts are usually also guaranteed. When players get cut and have remaining guaranteed money owed to them, that money counts against the team’s cap. We refer to this money as ‘dead cap space’. Over the last 4 years, NFL teams have averaged just under 10 million dollars in dead cap space. Mike Shanahan is a gambler. For that reason alone, the Broncos are going to be among the leaders in dead cap space. He's had his successes and failures. Football fans normally tend to focus on the failures when a team is struggling. Around the Denver area recently, we hear a lot of talk about free agent pickups like Dale Carter, Darryl Gardner, Simeon Rice, Travis Henry, Michael Dean Perry, and others. Some of the signings you won’t hear about as much these days are players like Ed Mccaffery, Mark Schlereth, Brian Habib, John Lynch, Howard Griffith, Bill Romanowski, Alfred Williams, Neil Smith, and others. Shanahan normally comes out on the winning end of trades. Gerard Warren to the Raiders for just a 5th round pick was arguably a poor trade, but moving Clinton Portis to Washington for Champ Bailey and a 2nd round pick was a stroke of brilliance. Portis has struggled continually with injuries while Bailey has become a perennial pro bowler and future hall of famer. Netting a 3rd and 4th round pick for Ashley Lelie was another masterpiece. If we choose to focus on the negative personnel moves made by Shanahan and his staff over the years, we certainly have room to complain. For the glass half full type of fans, there’s plenty to be happy about.

Personnel moves aside, let’s take a look at the big picture. When I asked myself what I really want out of my football team as a fan, I came up with 2 things…… 1) Having a competitive team, and 2) Winning championships. Let’s take a look at how Shanahan has done in these two areas.

Competitiveness:

I’ve compiled a chart of the 32 teams’ records since Shanahan was hired in Denver.


1 New England Patriots 135-73 0.649
2 Green Bay Packers 134-74 0.644
3 Denver Broncos 130-78 0.625
4 Pittsburgh Steelers 127-80-1 0.611
5 Indianapolis Colts 126-82 0.606
6 Philadelphia Eagles 117-90-1 0.563
7 Kansas City Chiefs 115-93 0.553
8 Tennessee Titans 114-94 0.548
9 Jacksonville Jaguars 113-95 0.543
9 Minnesota Vikings 113-95 0.543
9 Seattle Seahawks 113-95 0.543
12 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 109-99 0.524
13 Dallas Cowboys 108-100 0.519
14 Miami Dolphins 106-102 0.509
15 San Francisco 49'ers 105-103 0.505
16 New York Giants 104-103-1 0.499
17 St. Louis Cardinals 103-105 0.495
18 Cle/Baltimore Ravens 101-106-1 0.486
19 Buffalo Bills 100-108 0.481
20 San Diego Chargers 99-109 0.476
21 Washington Redskins 97-110-1 0.466
22 Carolina Panthers 97-111 0.466
23 Chicago Bears 95-113 0.457
23 New York Jets 95-113 0.457
25 Atlanta Falcons 94-114 0.452
26 New Orleans Saints 87-121 0.418
26 Oakland Raiders 87-121 0.418
28 Cincinnati Bengals 83-125 0.399
29 Detroit Lions 77-131 0.371
30 Arizona Cardinals 73-134-1 0.351
31 Cleveland Browns 50-94 0.347
32 Houston Texans 32-64 0.333


As you can see above, the Broncos have the 3rd best record in the NFL during Shanahan’s tenure. Their average record per season is 10-6.

Let’s take a look at the second category: Winning Championships. Shanahan and the Broncos have won 2 during his time here in Denver. That ranks second, bested only by the New England Patriots (3). 8 other teams have won a single Super Bowl, 22 teams have not won any, and half of the teams in the NFL have had a losing record between 1995-2008. The numbers are what they are, and as promised I’ll leave you with a question to help answer my original question.

If the current 32 owners were given an opportunity to hire a coach/gm for the next 13 years, and were guaranteed to have an average record of 10-6 and win 2 Super Bowls during that span, how many do you think would say no?
You pretty much summed up everything MOST of us have been saying for the past umpteen years.....except with stats to back it up with, for the thinking-impaired.

:D

rcsodak
06-10-2008, 12:42 AM
Its kind of hard to be 130-78 if you are as bad as some make you out to be in drafting and free agency.

Not really....


.....cuz that's where 'coaching' comes into play..... ;)

rcsodak
06-10-2008, 12:48 AM
One AFC West title since 1998 is awful. I'm sorry, but Shanahan is not a great HC. A great HC wins Division Titles. One Division Title since 1998 marks Shanahan as a poor head coach, actually.

Shanahan hasn't proven anything at all since 1998. So what if you win regular season games? Regular season wins mean nothing. TITLES is what counts. SD and Oak have won back to back AFC West Titles since 1998. Denver has not. SD won 3 out of the last 4 AFC West Titles with Drew Brees and Philip Rivers at QB and two different HC's. Oakland won consecutive AFC West Titles with Rich Gannon at QB and two different HC's.

Shanahan is actually pretty crappy as an HC.
Funny how 99.99999999% of those actually in the know, think otherwise.


Guess that's what recliners with beverage holders are for..... :coffee:

Tned
06-10-2008, 08:42 AM
If I was an SD fan I'd be pissed about their lack of playoff wins. But the Title banners, man, you can't discount them. It's a big deal. You have that Division Title banner hanging, that means you ruled something. The NFL only awards 8 each year. Consecutive Division Titles is a real big deal. 3 out of 4 years is - dare I say it? - a really big deal. I'd like to be on that end of the really big deal.

Ok, I'm off to work, so I don't have time to go back, but didn't you originally assert that the only thing that matters were playoff wins and that the Broncos 3rd best record in the league over the last 13 years means nothing, because there was only 1 playoff win in the last nine years? Now it's division titles, even without playoff wins that is important? :confused:

Anyhooo....

As I explained eariler, one of the things you have to take into consideration (at least if you try and look at it objectively in trying to understand what the Broncos have managed to do) is again realize that the Broncos have managed a rare feat of being able to rebuild the roster on the fly multiple times, without going through traditional rebuilding cycles. While, as I said, in hindsight it is possible to say that the moves that have ensured the Broncos have had a competitive team nearly every year, could also be responsible for them not 'cycling' back to becoming a dominant team, but you can't overlook Shanahan's accomplishment, which was to rebuild, WITHOUT a rebuilding phase.

Take the SD team you are so hot on. Prior to that run of three out of four division titles, the 8 years prior to that run saw the following win totals from '96-'03:
8
4
5
8
1
5
8
4

That's an average of 5.4 wins over an 8 year stretch. Compare that to the 9 year stretch you refer to (only one playoff win) where the Broncos have been rebuilding on the fly from '99 to '07:

6
11
8
9
10
10
13
9
7

That's an average of 9.2 wins, which included 4 playoff appearances (44% of their seasons) and one AFCCG appearance, while rebuilding the team with a new QB, new WR, new TE, new multiple DE/DTs, trading for Champ, etc.

So, once again, looking at it in hindsight, would we have been better off if Shanahan hadn't made 'short term fixes' in order to 'rebuild on the fly' and maintain a 9.2 win average over this drought you refer to? Would it have been better to only make moves for the future and fall to the more typical 5.4 win average that SD had prior to their good run? Who knows, hindsight is 20/20.

I have said in the past, and I will say again, that I would rather field a competitive team (~9-10 wins) EVERY year then go through 5-8 year stretches of low single digit wins, which is the norm with most NFL franchises. I don't want to go through 8 years of misery like San Diego did, in hopes that there might be a few years of dominance at the end of it, only to then plunge back into the depths of the NFL cyclical rebuilding phase a few years later.

Dreadnought
06-10-2008, 11:48 AM
Of all of Shanahan's accomplishments, I think the one that most impresses me isn't winning those two SB's (though thats Great as it is) but in going 13-3 with that mediocre 2005 squad and getting to the AFC title game. That was pure coaching magic there, because no way in Hell should that team have had a record as good as 13-3. A decent though by no means overpowering defense, Jake Plummer at QB, Ashley Lelie as a starting WR, and Mike Anderson/Tatum Bell at HB is not going to scare many people frankly. None of those guys will be remembered as All-Time Greats. Mike did it with pure smoke and mirrors that Year, and he eventually ran out of Voodoo. Its just been tough for us to accept that we really weren't actually all that good.

Lonestar
06-10-2008, 12:57 PM
Of all of Shanahan's accomplishments, I think the one that most impresses me isn't winning those two SB's (though thats Great as it is) but in going 13-3 with that mediocre 2005 squad and getting to the AFC title game. That was pure coaching magic there, because no way in Hell should that team have had a record as good as 13-3. A decent though by no means overpowering defense, Jake Plummer at QB, Ashley Lelie as a starting WR, and Mike Anderson/Tatum Bell at HB is not going to scare many people frankly. None of those guys will be remembered as All-Time Greats. Mike did it with pure smoke and mirrors that Year, and he eventually ran out of Voodoo. Its just been tough for us to accept that we really weren't actually all that good.

I have to say that most folks are not brave enough to say this and in some cases if understand it..

The case that I have been trying to make is mikey has been a pretty damned good coach and HAD he allowed a top notch personnel guy in here to make those decisions we would most likely not have had MA, ashley, tater or maybe even Jake on that 1995 team..

Just think what mikey could do with some upgraded talent over the past 8 years. What is to say that a top notch GM could not keep the talent fresh like the guy in PIT, NE, OR INDY has done..

Talent coupled together with a first rate offensive genius, who knows how many AFCW titles or Superbowls trophies could been in Dove Valley as we speak.

Ziggy
06-10-2008, 01:09 PM
Three AFC West Title banners in their stadium from the past 4 years as opposed to hanging in ours is not so good. It's kind of 'in your face' type of situation. They won the Division 3 out of past 4 years, they pretty much kicked our asses regardless of how many playoff wins they had. They did that with two different QB's, two different HC's, and two different GM's.

You can have your AFC West title banners all day long. I'll take the SUPER BOWL banners that are hanging in ours. My money says that San Diego's owner would too.

Acedude
06-10-2008, 05:23 PM
Ok, I'm off to work, so I don't have time to go back, but didn't you originally assert that the only thing that matters were playoff wins and that the Broncos 3rd best record in the league over the last 13 years means nothing, because there was only 1 playoff win in the last nine years? Now it's division titles, even without playoff wins that is important? :confused:

Anyhooo....

As I explained eariler, one of the things you have to take into consideration (at least if you try and look at it objectively in trying to understand what the Broncos have managed to do) is again realize that the Broncos have managed a rare feat of being able to rebuild the roster on the fly multiple times, without going through traditional rebuilding cycles. While, as I said, in hindsight it is possible to say that the moves that have ensured the Broncos have had a competitive team nearly every year, could also be responsible for them not 'cycling' back to becoming a dominant team, but you can't overlook Shanahan's accomplishment, which was to rebuild, WITHOUT a rebuilding phase.

Take the SD team you are so hot on. Prior to that run of three out of four division titles, the 8 years prior to that run saw the following win totals from '96-'03:
8
4
5
8
1
5
8
4

That's an average of 5.4 wins over an 8 year stretch. Compare that to the 9 year stretch you refer to (only one playoff win) where the Broncos have been rebuilding on the fly from '99 to '07:

6
11
8
9
10
10
13
9
7

That's an average of 9.2 wins, which included 4 playoff appearances (44% of their seasons) and one AFCCG appearance, while rebuilding the team with a new QB, new WR, new TE, new multiple DE/DTs, trading for Champ, etc.

So, once again, looking at it in hindsight, would we have been better off if Shanahan hadn't made 'short term fixes' in order to 'rebuild on the fly' and maintain a 9.2 win average over this drought you refer to? Would it have been better to only make moves for the future and fall to the more typical 5.4 win average that SD had prior to their good run? Who knows, hindsight is 20/20.

I have said in the past, and I will say again, that I would rather field a competitive team (~9-10 wins) EVERY year then go through 5-8 year stretches of low single digit wins, which is the norm with most NFL franchises. I don't want to go through 8 years of misery like San Diego did, in hopes that there might be a few years of dominance at the end of it, only to then plunge back into the depths of the NFL cyclical rebuilding phase a few years later.

I said Titles and playoff wins. Let's say you don't win the Div Title, if you win a playoff game that takes some of the sting off. Also, there's an AFC Title that you can win even without a Div Title. A playoff win or two even without a Div Title is a happy thing.

You and I just see things in a different way. You're happy with 9-10 wins a yr even if the team doesn't win a Div Title or any Title at all, and doesn't win playoff games. I'm not happy with that. Sure, it's nice to not have a horrible season back-to-back, and Shanahans overall regular season record is darn good, but I'm very disappointed in the lack of Div Titles and lone playoff win.

I'd be much happier if the playoff losses were competitive games, but the team just got plain smoked, never was in the game from the opening whistle.

If you and others want to sugarcoat the last nine years, I'll argue with you about it, because I don't think they've been all that great. I got spoiled by the years 1977-1998, obviously.

Acedude
06-10-2008, 05:26 PM
Of all of Shanahan's accomplishments, I think the one that most impresses me isn't winning those two SB's (though thats Great as it is) but in going 13-3 with that mediocre 2005 squad and getting to the AFC title game. That was pure coaching magic there, because no way in Hell should that team have had a record as good as 13-3. A decent though by no means overpowering defense, Jake Plummer at QB, Ashley Lelie as a starting WR, and Mike Anderson/Tatum Bell at HB is not going to scare many people frankly. None of those guys will be remembered as All-Time Greats. Mike did it with pure smoke and mirrors that Year, and he eventually ran out of Voodoo. Its just been tough for us to accept that we really weren't actually all that good.

Actually, 2005 was all about turnover ratio. Denver was something like +24 in turnover ratio that year. But yeah, the coaching staff as a whole did a good job that year.

Tned
06-10-2008, 07:13 PM
You and I just see things in a different way. You're happy with 9-10 wins a yr even if the team doesn't win a Div Title or any Title at all, and doesn't win playoff games. I'm not happy with that.

Yep, that's one of the great things about sports, different people can get different enjoyment. We have some people on this message board where the draft is the highlight of their year. Some people like a pitching duel in baseball, some an offensive outburst.


If you and others want to sugarcoat the last nine years, I'll argue with you about it, because I don't think they've been all that great. I got spoiled by the years 1977-1998, obviously.

Now you move from the agree to disagree type tone, to being condescending.

Who is sugar coating? As you stated above, we have different opinions as to what we would prefer to see from the team, and I simply don't want 2-5 win seasons. I look forward to the football season more than any other sport, and don't want to suffer through a 3 win season and during the 17 weeks of misery tell myself, "but this means we are going to get a good draft pick and can build for the future." I understand other people look at it a different way, but don't go around slamming them for their opinions.

Also, as to your 77-98. I didn't start watching the Broncos, or the NFL as I was a hockey and Baseball fan prior to that, until '85, but the early '90s weren't all roses. Following the last SB loss, there was six years of pretty dismal years where the team was basically .500 with only one, maybe two, playoff wins.

Acedude
06-10-2008, 07:25 PM
Yep, that's one of the great things about sports, different people can get different enjoyment. We have some people on this message board where the draft is the highlight of their year. Some people like a pitching duel in baseball, some an offensive outburst.



Now you move from the agree to disagree type tone, to being condescending.

Who is sugar coating? As you stated above, we have different opinions as to what we would prefer to see from the team, and I simply don't want 2-5 win seasons. I look forward to the football season more than any other sport, and don't want to suffer through a 3 win season and during the 17 weeks of misery tell myself, "but this means we are going to get a good draft pick and can build for the future." I understand other people look at it a different way, but don't go around slamming them for their opinions.

Also, as to your 77-98. I didn't start watching the Broncos, or the NFL as I was a hockey and Baseball fan prior to that, until '85, but the early '90s weren't all roses. Following the last SB loss, there was six years of pretty dismal years where the team was basically .500 with only one, maybe two, playoff wins.

You slam me for my opinion, as do others, so don't get on your high-horse. Until you say 'don't slam Ace for his opinion' to others, don't say it to me. OK?

Tned
06-10-2008, 07:39 PM
You slam me for my opinion, as do others, so don't get on your high-horse. Until you say 'don't slam Ace for his opinion' to others, don't say it to me. OK?

You brought any slams you got on yourself. If you feel you are being attacked or someone breaks the rules, hit the report button. I just pay the bills around here, I don't moderate.

By the way, go back and reread the thread, you didn't get slammed for your 'opinion', but instead how you responded to other posters.

How about that great stretch in the early '90s?

omac
06-10-2008, 10:28 PM
You brought any slams you got on yourself. If you feel you are being attacked or someone breaks the rules, hit the report button. I just pay the bills around here, I don't moderate.

By the way, go back and reread the thread, you didn't get slammed for your 'opinion', but instead how you responded to other posters.

How about that great stretch in the early '90s?

Yeah, he replies with gems like these. Ziggy made a fact filled statement, and here's how Acedude replies ....


Are you gonna cry? You sound like you're about to cry.

:coffee:

MOtorboat
06-10-2008, 10:29 PM
Yeah, he replies with gems like these. Ziggy made a fact filled statement, and here's how Acedude replies ....



:coffee:

He's playing the victim because he got owned.

It's typical troll material.

rcsodak
06-11-2008, 12:31 AM
I said Titles and playoff wins. Let's say you don't win the Div Title, if you win a playoff game that takes some of the sting off. Also, there's an AFC Title that you can win even without a Div Title. A playoff win or two even without a Div Title is a happy thing.

You and I just see things in a different way. You're happy with 9-10 wins a yr even if the team doesn't win a Div Title or any Title at all, and doesn't win playoff games. I'm not happy with that. Sure, it's nice to not have a horrible season back-to-back, and Shanahans overall regular season record is darn good, but I'm very disappointed in the lack of Div Titles and lone playoff win.

I'd be much happier if the playoff losses were competitive games, but the team just got plain smoked, never was in the game from the opening whistle.

If you and others want to sugarcoat the last nine years, I'll argue with you about it, because I don't think they've been all that great. I got spoiled by the years 1977-1998, obviously.

How 'bout when your dolts actually make it beyond "the best non-SB bound team", THEN come back and hand out your slobbery gobbledeegook.

Until then, the dolts are nothing more than paper tigers. Play great during the regular season, suck hind-teet in the playoffs. Hmmmm.....they could have kept Schotty and done that!
Now you're SCREWED, with Nooooooorv at the helm...


Good luck with that. :coffee:


And I don't care who is talking....


...I don't know one authentic person that would rather have a couple playoff wins and mediocre to sucky seasons scattered throughout, versus top 15 record YEAR IN - YEAR OUT!
All I see is a fan of a team whose normally in the cellar, but because of a string of Really crappy years, and Very high draft picks, is able to finally put a string of consecutive winning seasons together.

I doubt I'm alone in that thought.....:listen:

rcsodak
06-11-2008, 12:47 AM
If I was an SD fan I'd be pissed about their lack of playoff wins. But the Title banners, man, you can't discount them. It's a big deal. You have that Division Title banner hanging, that means you ruled something. The NFL only awards 8 each year. Consecutive Division Titles is a real big deal. 3 out of 4 years is - dare I say it? - a really big deal. I'd like to be on that end of the really big deal.

No....just ask the Pats!

How would it look if the Pats hadn't been to the SB's all those years?
How about the Eagles? They had quite a run there for a while. How many SB's did they get out of them?

Why the above teams? Because during their runs, just how good were their divisions? The AFC lEast? Are you serious? LMAO!!!!! The faiduhs would have been hanging banners if they were over there.

And the 'boys/giants/'skins were all on the other side of good, when the Eagles were getting to the NFCCG's. *and losing*

Winning a weak division's title becomes quite transparent, come time for the _FCCG.

So really, having multiple banners ISN'T "a really big deal" if they're paper tigers. And hmmm....by the number of SB's they've been in....... :coffee:

lex
06-11-2008, 11:24 AM
I think if people really looked at Shanahan's resume and at some of the places he has coached, you can see why his acumen is through-the-roof. His acumen is so good that you never can tell when a 13-3 season is around the corner. Much is made about losing in the playoffs but most of those losses were on the road. Road playoff games can, to some degree, be attributed to playing in a more competitive division. It seems like is been ages since the Raiders have been good but in reality the Raiders were very competitive during Gruden's time there and even the year after he left, and then KC kind of took over as an AFC West contender when Oakland dropped off. And alongside Vermeil leaving and age getting the better of KC, San Diego has been emerging. Its not like we've had the doormats within the division like youve seen with some divisions over the years. And this in-turn makes it more of a challenge to win HFA in the playoffs.

Tned
06-11-2008, 01:46 PM
I think if people really looked at Shanahan's resume and at some of the places he has coached, you can see why his acumen is through-the-roof. His acumen is so good that you never can tell when a 13-3 season is around the corner. Much is made about losing in the playoffs but most of those losses were on the road. Road playoff games can, to some degree, be attributed to playing in a more competitive division. It seems like is been ages since the Raiders have been good but in reality the Raiders were very competitive during Gruden's time there and even the year after he left, and then KC kind of took over as an AFC West contender when Oakland dropped off. And alongside Vermeil leaving and age getting the better of KC, San Diego has been emerging. Its not like we've had the doormats within the division like youve seen with some divisions over the years. And this in-turn makes it more of a challenge to win HFA in the playoffs.

Also running into Indy two years in a row when they were at the height of their offensive output.

The AFCCG game was a little different, because we were overmatched on both sides of the ball.

Lonestar
06-11-2008, 01:59 PM
I think if people really looked at Shanahan's resume and at some of the places he has coached, you can see why his acumen is through-the-roof. His acumen is so good that you never can tell when a 13-3 season is around the corner. Much is made about losing in the playoffs but most of those losses were on the road. Road playoff games can, to some degree, be attributed to playing in a more competitive division. It seems like is been ages since the Raiders have been good but in reality the Raiders were very competitive during Gruden's time there and even the year after he left, and then KC kind of took over as an AFC West contender when Oakland dropped off. And alongside Vermeil leaving and age getting the better of KC, San Diego has been emerging. Its not like we've had the doormats within the division like youve seen with some divisions over the years. And this in-turn makes it more of a challenge to win HFA in the playoffs.

remember that we took it to INDY at home the first time a few weeks before.. they showed us no mercy in that game the second one was our total inability to rush Manning..AGAIN

you forget two of those playoff games we lost were at home the first to JAX before the Superbowl games and then an ass whooping to PIT a game we were totally unprepared for.. in all phases of the game. mikey got out coached that day.. we lost that game at the LOS ....

lex
06-11-2008, 02:55 PM
remember that we took it to INDY at home the first time a few weeks before.. they showed us no mercy in that game the second one was our total inability to rush Manning..AGAIN

you forget two of those playoff games we lost were at home the first to JAX before the Superbowl games and then an ass whooping to PIT a game we were totally unprepared for.. in all phases of the game. mikey got out coached that day.. we lost that game at the LOS ....

Quite honestly, we overachieved in 2005. Its amazing to think that we went 13-3 and made it to the AFC Ch Game with Jake Plummer as our QB. But whats even more amazing is how we went 13-3. The fact that Jake Plummer became somewhat judicious with the ball was truly a credit to all coaches involved...not to mention the fact that all we had was a bootleg rollout and we actually made it work as long as we did. I dont think Shanahan was outcoached. I think Coyers inability to improvise was exposed that day. Shanahan and Kubiak had been making the offense work with smoke and mirrors all season.

Also, I think you fairly point out that we ran all over Indy at the end of the regular season in Indianapolis in the leadup to that playoff game. People often forget that. I saw that game as one of being whoevers offense got on track first, the other team was going to be on their heels. That was the case when we won and that was likewise the case when we faced Indy in the playoffs. I think had our offense been on track earlier in the playoff game, it would have been easier to hide deficiencies.

lex
06-11-2008, 02:57 PM
Also running into Indy two years in a row when they were at the height of their offensive output.

The AFCCG game was a little different, because we were overmatched on both sides of the ball.

Yeah, New England would have actually been a better matchup for us. Its like we have the upperhand on NE, NE has the upper hand on Indy, and Indy has had the upperhand on us. It has been unfortunate that seeding lined up as it did and thats kind of why I made the point of some teams not having the strongest divisions.

Lonestar
06-11-2008, 03:11 PM
Quite honestly, we overachieved in 2005. Its amazing to think that we went 13-3 and made it to the AFC Ch Game with Jake Plummer as our QB. But whats even more amazing is how we went 13-3. The fact that Jake Plummer became somewhat judicious with the ball was truly a credit to all coaches involved...not to mention the fact that all we had was a bootleg rollout and we actually made it work as long as we did. I dont think Shanahan was outcoached. I think Coyers inability to improvise was exposed that day. Shanahan and Kubiak had been making the offense work with smoke and mirrors all season.

Also, I think you fairly point out that we ran all over Indy at the end of the regular season in Indianapolis in the leadup to that playoff game. People often forget that. I saw that game as one of being whoevers offense got on track first, the other team was going to be on their heels. That was the case when we won and that was likewise the case when we faced Indy in the playoffs. I think had our offense been on track earlier in the playoff game, it would have been easier to hide deficiencies.

When I say out coached it was a generic thing.. We could not stop their pass rush and or run the ball to take some heat off.

We could not for the third time in a row put any pressure on the QB and consequently Ben killed us on third and long..

We were at home and confident had owned PIT for years and we got our asses kicked plain and simple I call that being under prepared and out coached..

lex
06-11-2008, 03:46 PM
When I say out coached it was a generic thing.. We could not stop their pass rush and or run the ball to take some heat off.

This is where personnel comes into play. This is where our eroding talent was most evident. Youre absolutely right about the running game which is why Ive been saying they should do something about it in the draft.


We could not for the third time in a row put any pressure on the QB and consequently Ben killed us on third and long..

Well, to Coyers credit his scheme eventually put enough pressure on Brady to the point where it led to that back breaking INT. The problem is that he used the same approach against Pittsburgh and when they devised a solution Coyer continued to run the same thing over. He clearly could not improvise when someone had a counter to his strategy. This was also evident in the Indy game the following season. He would either send no one or everyone too often.


We were at home and confident had owned PIT for years and we got our asses kicked plain and simple I call that being under prepared and out coached..

Yeah, we didnt have the personnel and this was the game that made it apparent we were only going to go so far with what we had.

omac
06-11-2008, 08:27 PM
Yeah, we didnt have the personnel and this was the game that made it apparent we were only going to go so far with what we had.

Yup, that's why I'm so excited about the team we have now; we now have top notch talent at QB, WR, TE, and most likely at LT. Our talent in the passing game is an upgrade over what we've had for a while; we won't have to rely so much on smoke and mirrors.

The emergence of Dumerville gives us more of a pass rush to pressure the QB.

We have very good depth at RB, but not necessarily top notch talent, though. We'll see if our OL can make our RBs look like stars.

Things are looking pretty good. :cheers:

rcsodak
06-11-2008, 10:39 PM
Quite honestly, we overachieved in 2005. Its amazing to think that we went 13-3 and made it to the AFC Ch Game with Jake Plummer as our QB. But whats even more amazing is how we went 13-3. The fact that Jake Plummer became somewhat judicious with the ball was truly a credit to all coaches involved...not to mention the fact that all we had was a bootleg rollout and we actually made it work as long as we did. I dont think Shanahan was outcoached. I think Coyers inability to improvise was exposed that day. Shanahan and Kubiak had been making the offense work with smoke and mirrors all season.

Also, I think you fairly point out that we ran all over Indy at the end of the regular season in Indianapolis in the leadup to that playoff game. People often forget that. I saw that game as one of being whoevers offense got on track first, the other team was going to be on their heels. That was the case when we won and that was likewise the case when we faced Indy in the playoffs. I think had our offense been on track earlier in the playoff game, it would have been easier to hide deficiencies.
And really....how many times has Indy been beaten in their house.....in the playoffs????

Acedude
06-12-2008, 08:59 AM
You brought any slams you got on yourself. If you feel you are being attacked or someone breaks the rules, hit the report button. I just pay the bills around here, I don't moderate.

By the way, go back and reread the thread, you didn't get slammed for your 'opinion', but instead how you responded to other posters.

How about that great stretch in the early '90s?

Let's see - I shouldn't slam anybody, but I brought slams on myself, so it's ok if someone slams me.

You're like a little boy. You need to grow up and me a man someday.

Ziggy
06-12-2008, 10:17 AM
Let's see - I shouldn't slam anybody, but I brought slams on myself, so it's ok if someone slams me.

You're like a little boy. You need to grow up and me a man someday.

I find it baffling that when kids run out of intelligent things to say, they start in with the 5th grade rhetoric. They just can't seem to quit while they're behind, and then they lose what miniscule bit of credibility they might have had at one time.

lex
06-12-2008, 10:35 AM
Yup, that's why I'm so excited about the team we have now; we now have top notch talent at QB, WR, TE, and most likely at LT. Our talent in the passing game is an upgrade over what we've had for a while; we won't have to rely so much on smoke and mirrors.

The emergence of Dumerville gives us more of a pass rush to pressure the QB.

We have very good depth at RB, but not necessarily top notch talent, though. We'll see if our OL can make our RBs look like stars.

Things are looking pretty good. :cheers:

BTW, Ive seen it posted that Wabbit has confirmed what I and many others have thought about Goodmans influence in the recent drafts and that one of the sources of tension has been that Sundquist didnt listen to the Goodmans enough. I saw that somewhere. It just seemed too apparent even from a far that there has been a shift in how we draft recently. We'd still be better off with a top tier RB but I like a lot of our recent draft picks too...I wasnt even THAT offended by how the Jarvis Moss thing played out. I still think we should draft Robinson if were drafting around 20ish next year.

Ziggy
06-12-2008, 12:45 PM
BTW, Ive seen it posted that Wabbit has confirmed what I and many others have thought about Goodmans influence in the recent drafts and that one of the sources of tension has been that Sundquist didnt listen to the Goodmans enough. I saw that somewhere. It just seemed too apparent even from a far that there has been a shift in how we draft recently. We'd still be better off with a top tier RB but I like a lot of our recent draft picks too...I wasnt even THAT offended by how the Jarvis Moss thing played out. I still think we should draft Robinson if were drafting around 20ish next year.


That makes sense Lex. Do you have any links to back it up? Many of us have had the same suspision, but never a good source to prove it.

lex
06-12-2008, 12:55 PM
That makes sense Lex. Do you have any links to back it up? Many of us have had the same suspision, but never a good source to prove it.


Sorry, I dont. As I said though, I saw someone else mention this. Im not sure if that does any good anyway, since what I saw was referring to Wabbit and not from Wabbit himself. Id have to search through Wabbits posts.

OMorange&blue
06-12-2008, 08:03 PM
That makes sense Lex. Do you have any links to back it up? Many of us have had the same suspision, but never a good source to prove it.


Sorry, I dont. As I said though, I saw someone else mention this. Im not sure if that does any good anyway, since what I saw was referring to Wabbit and not from Wabbit himself. Id have to search through Wabbits posts.

Translation:

I like to make stuff up. As I said though, I saw someone else mention this. Since it supports an idea I had, I am using it as a reference. Its also entirely possible I made the whole thing up. You know, to make myself look smart.

lex
06-13-2008, 02:53 AM
Translation:

At the time I read it, there was no way for me to know that someone would be asking for a link to that post. Who goes around copying links of random posts in case someone may ask for them? And, furthermore, if you look at my response its apparent that I presented this in a way to provide full disclosure. I was upfront about the fact that it was second hand.

rcsodak
06-13-2008, 10:22 AM
Let's see - I shouldn't slam anybody, but I brought slams on myself, so it's ok if someone slams me.

You're like a little boy. You need to grow up and me a man someday.

I love freudian slips....:cool:

rcsodak
06-13-2008, 10:24 AM
BTW, Ive seen it posted that Wabbit has confirmed what I and many others have thought about Goodmans influence in the recent drafts and that one of the sources of tension has been that Sundquist didnt listen to the Goodmans enough. I saw that somewhere. It just seemed too apparent even from a far that there has been a shift in how we draft recently. We'd still be better off with a top tier RB but I like a lot of our recent draft picks too...I wasnt even THAT offended by how the Jarvis Moss thing played out. I still think we should draft Robinson if were drafting around 20ish next year.

I doubt Duke will still be around. Top 10-15, looking back at past drafts.

lex
06-13-2008, 12:05 PM
I doubt Duke will still be around. Top 10-15, looking back at past drafts.

Yeah, I know...just like theres probably 25 guys who will be taken in the top 15...there always is.

dekers
06-27-2008, 02:51 AM
One AFC West title since 1998 is awful. I'm sorry, but Shanahan is not a great HC. A great HC wins Division Titles. One Division Title since 1998 marks Shanahan as a poor head coach, actually.

Shanahan hasn't proven anything at all since 1998. So what if you win regular season games? Regular season wins mean nothing. TITLES is what counts. SD and Oak have won back to back AFC West Titles since 1998. Denver has not. SD won 3 out of the last 4 AFC West Titles with Drew Brees and Philip Rivers at QB and two different HC's. Oakland won consecutive AFC West Titles with Rich Gannon at QB and two different HC's.

Shanahan is actually pretty crappy as an HC.

It is true SD and Oak have won all the AFC west titles in recent years. But in that time they have as many super bowl wins as us 0 :rolleyes: and this is the only title that matters. In case you forgot in 1997 the Chiefs won the AFC west title and we won the Super Bowl :eek: , which one would you rather have :confused: ? I know my answer , Whats your's ?

broncobear
07-15-2008, 03:15 AM
You know, over the past month I've been compiling some stats that probably explain why Bowlen is so loyal to Shanahan. Granted, some people will still feel that he is 'underrated', and others wish him replaced, although the question of 'by who?' remains. Still, this is worth considering (any stats another person compilied are so noted):

Head Coach: Mike Shanahan Pro Career:
• Became the 11th head coach in Broncos history on Jan. 31, 1995. Led the Broncos to back-to-back Super Bowl championships in 1997 and 1998, becoming just the fifth head coach to accomplish that feat, and is the only coach to win seven consecutive postseason games in a two-year period.
• No NFL head coach has won more games than Mike Shanhan's 130 victories since the start of the 1995 season. During his NFL career, Shanahan has been a part of teams that have played in nine conference championship games and six Super Bowls.
• In 27 seasons as a pro and college coach, Shanahan's teams have participated in postseason or bowl games 22 times. Under Shanahan's guidance, Denver has set an NFL record by posting the most victories in both a two-year (33, 1997-98) and three-year (46, 1996-98) period.
• In the last 12 years (nine with Denver and three as offensive coordinator with the San Francisco 49ers), Shanahan's offenses have finished number one in the NFL four times, second twice, and third twice.
The Broncos offensive line placed second in the NFL in rushing yards (11,919) and ranked fourth in the league in fewest sacks allowed (140) from 2002-2007.
From ThorpeBroncosFan on Jun 18, 2008 5:43 AM MDT under Is Shanahan A Cheater, MHR:
Coach Shanahan:
Posted the most wins in pro football history in a three-year period (46 in 1996-98).
Won the most postseason games in history over a two-year period (seven, 1997-98).
Been undefeated and untied for three consecutive regular seasons (1996-98) at home, just the second team ever to be undefeated and untied at home in three consecutive years.
-In 2004 (for those who argue that he was good only in the 90s), he joined the exclusive club of head coaches to post 100 wins in his first 10 seasons with one club, finishing the campaign and decade tied for fourth on this ultra-impressive list of 12 coaches, six of whom are in the Pro Football Hall of Fame.
-Joins Vince Lombardi, Don Shula, Chuck Noll, Jimmy Johnson and Bill Belichick as the only six coaches to win back-to-back Super Bowls.
He is the second coach in history to win two Super Bowl titles in his first four years coaching a team (Shula did it first and Belichick did it later, winning two Super Bowls in his first four seasons in New England).
Highest winning percentage in Denver history (.646).
-Shanahan is one of seven coaches in pro football history to post four wins in one postseason along with Tom Flores, Joe Gibbs, Brian Billick, Bill Cowher, Tony Dungy and Tom Coughlin.
Only coach with seven postseason wins in a two-year period.
-The all-time high of 636 points in a season came from the 1994 Super Bowl Champion San Francisco 49ers, for whom Shanahan was the offensive coordinator.
-During his NFL career, Shanahan has been a part of teams that have played in 10 Conference Championship Games, in addition to his six Super Bowl appearances, five with Denver and Super Bowl XXIX with San Francisco.

And finally, from spock, MHR:

One of the measures of a top coach is how well he does between franchise quarterbacks. Shanahan was 47-17 (73.4%) with Elway, Belichick has been 86-26 (76.8%) with Brady, Dungy has been 73-23 (76%) with Manning. But Belichick pre-Bady was 41-55 (42.7%), Dungy pre-Manning was 54-42 (56.3%), and Shanahan post-Elway and pre-Cutler was 74-49 (60.2%). Dungy and Belichick have done a hair better than Shanahan with their franchise QBs, but have had more years, 8 and 6 respectively, to build up their winning percentages. (Shanahan, after an 8-8 start, went 39-9 (81.3%) in his last 3 years with Elway.)
But it’s the years without franchise QBs (a much longer stretch for Shanahan) that are revealing, 42.7% for “genius” Belichick, an impressive 56.3% for Dungy, and a gaudy 60.2% for Shanahan. Shanahan’s genius shows in the job he did with Plummer. He literally made a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. He made the most of Plummer’s assets and minimized his liabilities. But he realized an offense-oriented team can go only so far without a blue-ribbon QB and moved up to grab Cutler in what is turning out to be a brilliant 2006 draft. The Cutler era has gotten off to a slow start, with wholesale injuries and Cutler thrown into action as a rookie and playing sick his second year, but it would be foolish to bet against Shanahan’s

I think the facts speak for themselves. Thanks for listening!

Sponsored Links