PDA

View Full Version : IF the Broncos go 7-9 or worse?



Northman
10-21-2010, 02:53 PM
A counterpart to what jhildebrand posted.

What are your thoughts if that happens? Is it still progress? Does McD deserve another year even if we take a step back record wise? Discuss.

I Eat Staples
10-21-2010, 02:55 PM
I think McD is an awful coach regardless, but if we go 7-9 I think Bowlen will get a lot less patient. I hope he's gone before he really screws us over.

BigDaddyBronco
10-21-2010, 02:56 PM
I don't know if it is progress or not. Depends on the circumstances.

It will not matter if we end up 5-11, McDaniels will get another year.

Northman
10-21-2010, 02:58 PM
It will not matter if we end up 5-11, McDaniels will get another year.

My guess is your probably right although i think if we are that bad Bowlen might be second guessing himself at that point. I think it would make his decision a lot harder if we are 5-11 as opposed to 7-9 or 8-8 again.

jhildebrand
10-21-2010, 03:00 PM
Good idea, northman!

I voted no! 7-9 just isn't getting it done. This is his roster, his staff, his everything. To have a worse record despite better QB play and a much easier schedule than last year wouldn't be acceptable.

Again, those who choose to simply state that he is "here no matter what" why bother posting in the thread? :confused: That isn't the point! The point is What Would YOU do. Seriously, it could make for some good debate.

Or we could always go back to another Hillis thread. I hear Gem loves them.

Ravage!!!
10-21-2010, 03:01 PM
Depends how we finish the back part of the season. Just like stats, the record never really tells the whole story.

Now, I'm NOT buying into this "INJURIES" excuse crap. Every team deals with them, every team suffers through them. We aren't any different, and McD doesn't deserve some kind of "gimme" based on injuries. Seems he was given the "gimme" already with last season.

But if we continue to do the same things, and continue to lose at the same rate/percentage we have over the last season's worth of games, then a firing SHOULD be considered.

The use of so many picks to draft Tebow, and have him sit on the bench, does NOT buy you 2 years. Thats the chance the coach took in making that draft choice. Instead of drafting a player that could be used now, we draft one high that is a HUGE project and HUGE reach.

If we start to show some improvement, and SOMETHING that indicates that this supposed "system" really is worth having, then he should get another year. But right now, thats a big hill.

If first round draft picks can get SHIPPED off after one season for lack of non-production and not showing promise, there is no reason to think/believe that Coaches can't be fired after two seasons.

jhildebrand
10-21-2010, 03:03 PM
If first round draft picks can get SHIPPED off after one season for lack of non-production and not showing promise, there is no reason to think/believe that Coaches can't be fired after two seasons.

Well stated :salute:

underrated29
10-21-2010, 03:06 PM
IF we go less than 8-8 NO it is not progress, especially with the schedule we have coming up!

But Josh should not be fired. That is why teams keep sucking is someone gets the touchy finger and no patience and teams have to constantly rebuild..Its an old move and a dumb move. He needs at least 1 more year (which I think he will have no problem getting)


But if we go 7-9 I will be very very unhappy and expect nothing less than playoffs the next year.


But it will not happen. We have it this year.

BigDaddyBronco
10-21-2010, 03:08 PM
My guess is your probably right although i think if we are that bad Bowlen might be second guessing himself at that point. I think it would make his decision a lot harder if we are 5-11 as opposed to 7-9 or 8-8 again.
What if Orton gets a season ending injury, Moreno is gimpy the rest of the year, and Champ gets hurt? Then 5-11 might not be so bad.

You have to put everything in perspective I think.

I'm obviously still in the McD's camp, but what will do him in for me is if we can't improve the run game next year, we don't draft any front 7 on the defense in the first two rounds, and we don't go 9-7 or 10-6 in the 2011 season. Now they might not have the 2011 season or a shortened season, so that will buy him another year. I think we have seen progress in both the offense and defense in most areas from last year regardless of record, and expect the end result record to be the same if not better than last year.

jhildebrand
10-21-2010, 03:11 PM
What if Orton gets a season ending injury, Moreno is gimpy the rest of the year, and Champ gets hurt? Then 5-11 might not be so bad.

I hope you knocked on wood typing that :eek: Orton goes down and people will remember this post....:tsk:

Ravage!!!
10-21-2010, 03:11 PM
What if Orton gets a season ending injury, Moreno is gimpy the rest of the year, and Champ gets hurt? Then 5-11 might not be so bad.

You have to put everything in perspective I think.

I'm obviously still in the McD's camp, but what will do him in for me is if we can't improve the run game next year, we don't draft any front 7 on the defense in the first two rounds, and we don't go 9-7 or 10-6 in the 2011 season. Now they might not have the 2011 season or a shortened season, so that will buy him another year. I think we have seen progress in both the offense and defense in most areas from last year regardless of record, and expect the end result record to be the same if not better than last year.

I wouldn't buy into the injuries, even if that happened. Teams have done fine with back-ups throughout the NFL. Injuries are NOT an excuse, not when the team is already 2-4, and 4-12, with the starters in the game.

5-11 would look horrible no matter what.

Tom Nalen
10-21-2010, 03:13 PM
if we continue the way we are playing coupled with our easy schedule down the raod, we are not going worse than 10-6. Book it.

Northman
10-21-2010, 03:13 PM
What if Orton gets a season ending injury, Moreno is gimpy the rest of the year, and Champ gets hurt? Then 5-11 might not be so bad.

Injuries happen everywhere though. Does it effect your team to have injuries to significant players? Oh yea but you still have to go out and compete and win. A guy like Matt Cassell did that when pretty much the world wrote NE off. Sure, he had solid players around him but he was still green and played well in that system. Im just not going to give McD a pass with injuries when other coaches including our previous one had to deal with them and still try to win. Its just the nature of the beast in this league.


I'm obviously still in the McD's camp, but what will do him in for me is if we can't improve the run game next year, we don't draft any front 7 on the defense in the first two rounds, and we don't go 9-7 or 10-6 in the 2011 season. Now they might not have the 2011 season or a shortened season, so that will buy him another year. I think we have seen progress in both the offense and defense in most areas from last year regardless of record, and expect the end result record to be the same if not better than last year.See, i disagree. Offensively we can move the ball, but we were doing that with Cutler and crew in 08'. Our problem is and still is redzone scoring. We just arent putting up enough points and it leaves teams in the game and puts a lot more pressure on the defense which in their own right is giving up more points this year than last. But i still think he will be here another year just going by gut feeling.

SOCALORADO.
10-21-2010, 03:14 PM
IF we go less than 8-8 NO it is not progress, especially with the schedule we have coming up!

But Josh should not be fired. That is why teams keep sucking is someone gets the touchy finger and no patience and teams have to constantly rebuild..Its an old move and a dumb move. He needs at least 1 more year (which I think he will have no problem getting)


But if we go 7-9 I will be very very unhappy and expect nothing less than playoffs the next year.


But it will not happen. We have it this year.

Agreed. And MCD isnt goin anywhere no matter how they finish.
The Tebow signing only highlights this. Bowlen signed off on MCD
trading up and getting another 1st to take his guy, who he will
develop.
Get used to MCD here for another year regardless.

BigDaddyBronco
10-21-2010, 03:15 PM
I hope you knocked on wood typing that :eek: Orton goes down and people will remember this post....:tsk:
Yes, I knocked on my peg leg........

ARGHHHHHH!!!!!

jhildebrand
10-21-2010, 03:17 PM
Yes, I knocked on my peg leg........

ARGHHHHHH!!!!!

:gotpics: or it didnt happen :D

BroncoWave
10-21-2010, 03:26 PM
I would hope out owner isn't stupid enough to fire McD if we go 7-9 this season. You know why teams like the Browns, Raiders, Lions, and Bills are picking in the top 10 every season? Because those teams don't give their coaches a chance to rebuild those teams and get a few years of continuity going.

I Eat Staples
10-21-2010, 03:32 PM
Again, those who choose to simply state that he is "here no matter what" why bother posting in the thread? :confused: That isn't the point! The point is What Would YOU do.

Agreed. It's boring to state obvious facts, it's much more fun to discuss things and add your own opinion.

slim
10-21-2010, 03:33 PM
I agree with onion head, you can't base it only on won/loss.

I have seen progress this year. In fact, I think this is a better team than last years (all around), regardless of what the record is.

rcsodak
10-21-2010, 03:36 PM
A counterpart to what jhildebrand posted.

What are your thoughts if that happens? Is it still progress? Does McD deserve another year even if we take a step back record wise? Discuss.
IMO, a record doesnt necessarily show the direction/current state of a team. Key injuries, schedule, bad bounces,etc play too biig of part in the NFL.. But if you can see the progress in the team, regardless of the outcome, iit lends itself to continuing on. But 7-8 wins 3yrs in a row might point to a problem.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

I Eat Staples
10-21-2010, 03:38 PM
I agree with onion head, you can't base it only on won/loss.

I have seen progress this year. In fact, I think this is a better team than last years (all around), regardless of what the record is.

I agree. I feel like we won't go anywhere with McD, though. He's going to hold us back from truly excelling. I'd like to see what a real coach could do with this team.

slim
10-21-2010, 03:40 PM
I agree. I feel like we won't go anywhere with McD, though. He's going to hold us back from truly excelling. I'd like to see what a real coach could do with this team.

I think it was pretty clear the NYJ were out-coached last week, the players just didn't execute.

In fact, that seems to happen a lot.

slim
10-21-2010, 03:42 PM
Shank, go start a "If the Broncos go 9-7" thread.

I will start the "10-6" thread, that way we will have all the bases covered.

jhildebrand
10-21-2010, 03:42 PM
I would hope out owner isn't stupid enough to fire McD if we go 7-9 this season. You know why teams like the Browns, Raiders, Lions, and Bills are picking in the top 10 every season? Because those teams don't give their coaches a chance to rebuild those teams and get a few years of continuity going.

How long has Kubiak been in Houston without the Playoffs?

Plenty of teams have hired coaches and stuck with them only to see no real progress.

jhildebrand
10-21-2010, 03:44 PM
Agreed. It's boring to state obvious facts, it's much more fun to discuss things and add your own opinion.

Not to mention it gives us an idea as to how other posters think, it makes for good debate, and keeps us from talking about the Raiders.

jhildebrand
10-21-2010, 03:44 PM
Shank, go start a "If the Broncos go 9-7" thread.

I will start the "10-6" thread, that way we will have all the bases covered.

No need! It would be hard to argue 9-7, a winning record, isn't progress from the .500 we have posted 4-5 consecutive seasons

slim
10-21-2010, 03:45 PM
No need! It would be hard to argue 9-7, a winning record, isn't progress from the .500 we have posted 4-5 consecutive seasons

You underestimate your fellow posters.

jhildebrand
10-21-2010, 03:46 PM
You underestimate your fellow posters.

Possibly :D

Question: Why does the guy in your avi have almost the entire "W" from Wu-Tang on his face?

BigDaddyBronco
10-21-2010, 03:48 PM
Possibly :D

Question: Why does the guy in your avi have almost the entire "W" from Wu-Tang on his face?

Cause the Wu-Tang clan ain't nothing to **** with....

slim
10-21-2010, 03:49 PM
Possibly :D

Question: Why does the guy in your avi have almost the entire "W" from Wu-Tang on his face?

If I had to guess, I would say it was a cry for help. :noidea:

jhildebrand
10-21-2010, 03:50 PM
If I had to guess, I would say it was a cry for help. :noidea:


Cause the Wu-Tang clan ain't nothing to **** with....

Winner right ^^ there!

slim
10-21-2010, 03:51 PM
Winner right ^^ there!

Yeah, BDB has it right.

He is a smart and handsome man.

rcsodak
10-21-2010, 03:51 PM
Good idea, northman!

I voted no! 7-9 just isn't getting it done. This is his roster, his staff, his everything. To have a worse record despite better QB play and a much easier schedule than last year wouldn't be acceptable.

Again, those who choose to simply state that he is "here no matter what" why bother posting in the thread? :confused: That isn't the point! The point is What Would YOU do. Seriously, it could make for some good debate.

Or we could always go back to another Hillis thread. I hear Gem loves them.
Indy, Tenn, NYJ, Balt is an "easier" schedule? Didnt someone post that denvers schedule was against the highest winning percentage in the league?
Plus, I credit jax as well. Healthy team in front of one of their biggest crowds, stoked for the year. And PCaroll has Sea playing better than many projected.

I wont even go into their youth/new faces/new DC/injuries. Not giddy about the 2-4, but I am OPTIMISTIC.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

BigDaddyBronco
10-21-2010, 03:53 PM
Yeah, BDB has it right.

He is a smart and handsome man.

Slim, you're charming the pants off me...

slim
10-21-2010, 03:53 PM
Indy, Tenn, NYJ, Balt is an "easier" schedule? Didnt someone post that denvers schedule was against the highest winning percentage in the league?
Plus, I credit jax as well. Healthy team in front of one of their biggest crowds, stoked for the year. And PCaroll has Sea playing better than many projected.

I wont even go into their youth/new faces/new DC/injuries. Not giddy about the 2-4, but I am OPTIMISTIC.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Brutal schedule so far. But that is about to change.

I am optimistic as well.

slim
10-21-2010, 03:54 PM
Slim, you're charming the pants off me...

Posting without pants is against the CoC.

Post reported.

rcsodak
10-21-2010, 03:58 PM
I wouldn't buy into the injuries, even if that happened. Teams have done fine with back-ups throughout the NFL. Injuries are NOT an excuse, not when the team is already 2-4, and 4-12, with the starters in the game.

5-11 would look horrible no matter what.
Evidently ya'll keep forgetting the first 6 games last year? I thought only Jags did that.
It's 10-12.
Glad to help out. :coffee:
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Dreadnought
10-21-2010, 03:59 PM
Posting without pants is against the CoC.

Post reported.

Truth be told, I bet more folks here post without any pants than care to admit it. For example, I'd put money down that says Tned posts in the nude pretty regularly.

I Eat Staples
10-21-2010, 04:02 PM
Indy, Tenn, NYJ, Balt is an "easier" schedule? Didnt someone post that denvers schedule was against the highest winning percentage in the league?
Plus, I credit jax as well. Healthy team in front of one of their biggest crowds, stoked for the year. And PCaroll has Sea playing better than many projected.

I wont even go into their youth/new faces/new DC/injuries. Not giddy about the 2-4, but I am OPTIMISTIC.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Our schedule is easier this year, but it's still hard. Our schedule last year was even more brutal. The Jags are a completely garbage team, though. No excuse for losing to those scrubs.

slim
10-21-2010, 04:06 PM
Truth be told, I bet more folks here post without any pants than care to admit it. For example, I'd put money down that says Tned posts in the nude pretty regularly.

It's good to be the King.

Magnificent Seven
10-21-2010, 04:08 PM
Denver Broncos are good team... however, it is all about injury issue. We got banged up Broncos.

rcsodak
10-21-2010, 04:11 PM
How long has Kubiak been in Houston without the Playoffs?

Plenty of teams have hired coaches and stuck with them only to see no real progress.
Young team and tough as hell division. I'm glad he's still there. Almost made the playoffs, and finally took one from Indy. They're a fun team to watch and are only "a couple guys away". lol
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Gimpygod
10-21-2010, 04:14 PM
Depends how we finish the back part of the season. Just like stats, the record never really tells the whole story.

Now, I'm NOT buying into this "INJURIES" excuse crap. Every team deals with them, every team suffers through them. We aren't any different, and McD doesn't deserve some kind of "gimme" based on injuries. Seems he was given the "gimme" already with last season.

But if we continue to do the same things, and continue to lose at the same rate/percentage we have over the last season's worth of games, then a firing SHOULD be considered.

The use of so many picks to draft Tebow, and have him sit on the bench, does NOT buy you 2 years. Thats the chance the coach took in making that draft choice. Instead of drafting a player that could be used now, we draft one high that is a HUGE project and HUGE reach.

If we start to show some improvement, and SOMETHING that indicates that this supposed "system" really is worth having, then he should get another year. But right now, thats a big hill.

If first round draft picks can get SHIPPED off after one season for lack of non-production and not showing promise, there is no reason to think/believe that Coaches can't be fired after two seasons.

the injury excuse is especially invalid because our lack of depth is directly attributable to McDaniels blithely throwing people overboard if they didn't throw their back out trying to kiss his butt. A Hall of Fame coach got fired in 2008 with an 8-8 record and everyone was broken that year, we had fullbacks playing starting linebacker and cell phone salesman at running back. The injury situation now isn't even comparable but it feels worse because all of our depth is playing for other teams.

GEM
10-21-2010, 04:17 PM
Posting without pants is against the CoC.

Post reported.

Is it strictly no pants or do slacks unzipped count. :shocked:

rcsodak
10-21-2010, 04:23 PM
Truth be told, I bet more folks here post without any pants than care to admit it. For example, I'd put money down that says Tned posts in the nude pretty regularly.
patient-doc, why is my penis orange?
doc-I dunno. All tests came back negative. I noticed your fingers are also orange.
patient-oh. Thats nothing.I LOVE Cheetos. You should see my keyboard!
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

rcsodak
10-21-2010, 04:25 PM
Our schedule is easier this year, but it's still hard. Our schedule last year was even more brutal. The Jags are a completely garbage team, though. No excuse for losing to those scrubs.
Today, with no healthy qbls, yes. But they did beat Indy. Talk about a coach on the hot-seat, though. :eek:
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

rcsodak
10-21-2010, 04:30 PM
Is it strictly no pants or do slacks unzipped count. :shocked:
hmmmmmm....silky, cotton, granny or thong? :eek:
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Gimpygod
10-21-2010, 04:48 PM
I think it was pretty clear the NYJ were out-coached last week, the players just didn't execute.

In fact, that seems to happen a lot.

Which part made it most clear, botched snaps, losing score, not the right number of guys on the field (which we seem to be having a lot of either on defense or special teams)?

silkamilkamonico
10-21-2010, 05:01 PM
I'm not sure I f I woud want McDaniels back next year or not if we don't win
7+ games. I do know I would not want to make a coaching change, and then get stuck with a first round pick at QB with Tebow, who the next coach more than likely would not want to use.

If Bowlen puts stipulations on the next coach that he has to try and work with Tebow, thagt will limit the applicant pool considerably.

slim
10-21-2010, 05:06 PM
Which part made it most clear, botched snaps, losing score, not the right number of guys on the field (which we seem to be having a lot of either on defense or special teams)?

Botched snaps are a lack of execution. A basic play that has nothing to do with coaching.

One the jets first drive, there were two dropped interecptions...players in a position to make a play, but they failed to make it.

On the jets last drive of the game, a fluke penalty on a hail mary. Again, has nothing to do with coaching.

They lost the game because the players didn't execute.

claymore
10-21-2010, 05:11 PM
I'm not sure I f I woud want McDaniels back next year or not if we don't win
7+ games. I do know I would not want to make a coaching change, and then get stuck with a first round pick at QB with Tebow, who the next coach more than likely would not want to use.

If Bowlen puts stipulations on the next coach that he has to try and work with Tebow, thagt will limit the applicant pool considerably.

We have wasted so many #1 picks over the years whats one more?

Bosco
10-21-2010, 05:12 PM
It doesn't matter what we think. It only matters what Bowlen thinks and there is simply zero chance that Josh doesn't finish out his contract at the very minimum.

slim
10-21-2010, 05:16 PM
We have wasted so many #1 picks over the years whats one more?

Hi Clay.

We are gearing up for a two game winning streak. :championship:

I Eat Staples
10-21-2010, 05:22 PM
Which part made it most clear, botched snaps, losing score, not the right number of guys on the field (which we seem to be having a lot of either on defense or special teams)?

You can't blame botched snaps on the coach, but not having enough guys on the field certainly falls on coaching.


I'm not sure I f I woud want McDaniels back next year or not if we don't win
7+ games. I do know I would not want to make a coaching change, and then get stuck with a first round pick at QB with Tebow, who the next coach more than likely would not want to use.

If Bowlen puts stipulations on the next coach that he has to try and work with Tebow, thagt will limit the applicant pool considerably.

If we fire McD, we should sign Orton to a long-term deal and trade Tebow away, chalking him up as another McD failure.

Bosco
10-21-2010, 05:32 PM
If we fire McD, we should sign Orton to a long-term deal and trade Tebow away, chalking him up as another McD failure.

Why don't you tell us again how Brandon Lloyd shouldn't even be on our roster?

Ravage!!!
10-21-2010, 05:32 PM
Botched snaps are a lack of execution. A basic play that has nothing to do with coaching.

One the jets first drive, there were two dropped interecptions...players in a position to make a play, but they failed to make it.

On the jets last drive of the game, a fluke penalty on a hail mary. Again, has nothing to do with coaching.

They lost the game because the players didn't execute.

Slim... a basic execution in the Special teams unit, again. How is that not coaching? Could be not enough work with the player, or simply not allocating enough time in Special teams altogether. Thats like saying that the same teams that commit the most penalties, is not on the coaching staff. NONE of the execution is done by the coaching. EVERY PLAY could be have the caveat of "if the play was executed correctly, it would have worked."

Teams ALWAYS lose because the players don't execute, but that doesn't alleviate the coaches responsibility. The Jets could say the same thing about execution. The Jets did NOT play their best game against us, and that was because of their lack of execution. So we can't say that the Broncos "out-coached" the Jets.

We could say that the ONLY reason the game was as close as it was, is because the Jets didn't execute.... and would probably be more accurate than saying "the only reason we lost was because the players didn't execute."

Ravage!!!
10-21-2010, 05:36 PM
I'm not sure I f I woud want McDaniels back next year or not if we don't win
7+ games. I do know I would not want to make a coaching change, and then get stuck with a first round pick at QB with Tebow, who the next coach more than likely would not want to use.

If Bowlen puts stipulations on the next coach that he has to try and work with Tebow, thagt will limit the applicant pool considerably.

Thats a good point, silk. There was a reason most coaches didn't want to draft Tebow in the first round.... and the fact that he's siting is showing just those reasons.

I don't know what will happen if we have to hire a new coach that has Tebow as the slated "future." Will it limit the kind of offense we run? He's made purely for the "spread" that doesn't require much reading.

Tned
10-21-2010, 05:36 PM
A counterpart to what jhildebrand posted.

What are your thoughts if that happens? Is it still progress? Does McD deserve another year even if we take a step back record wise? Discuss.

I only have a few minutes, so have to keep it short.

I have to see the rest of the games before making a call, but from what I have seen so far, I say yes, he gets another year. I say that for two reasons:

First, I do see progress. Unfortunately, not in the record, but in terms of play on the field, especially with defense, and obviously the passing game, so I do think there is progress and I would like to see what happens if given 3 years to turnover the roster and implement his philosophies fully.

Second, firing him now could easily start a HC revolving door. We bring in the next guy, he rotates out a lot of the roster, maybe all those aging veteran pickups, implements his schemes and we are now in another rebuild period. He struggles his first two years, and bam, we are on to HC number three.

I think we are in this deep, we need to fully play this hand and see what happens.

slim
10-21-2010, 05:40 PM
Slim... a basic execution in the Special teams unit, again. How is that not coaching? Could be not enough work with the player, or simply not allocating enough time in Special teams altogether. Thats like saying that the same teams that commit the most penalties, is not on the coaching staff. NONE of the execution is done by the coaching. EVERY PLAY could be have the caveat of "if the play was executed correctly, it would have worked."

Teams ALWAYS lose because the players don't execute, but that doesn't alleviate the coaches responsibility. The Jets could say the same thing about execution. The Jets did NOT play their best game against us, and that was because of their lack of execution. So we can't say that the Broncos "out-coached" the Jets.

We could say that the ONLY reason the game was as close as it was, is because the Jets didn't execute.... and would probably be more accurate than saying "the only reason we lost was because the players didn't execute."

C'mon, a botched snap has nothing to do with coaching. It is nothing but a lack of concentration. That is all on the player.

I see your point that the jets could make the same statement, but I thought it was a well coached game by McD (for the most part). They seemed to go a bit conservative in the 4th quarter, but other than that, they had a good game plan, IMO.

BroncoWave
10-21-2010, 05:43 PM
I only have a few minutes, so have to keep it short.

I have to see the rest of the games before making a call, but from what I have seen so far, I say yes, he gets another year. I say that for two reasons:

First, I do see progress. Unfortunately, not in the record, but in terms of play on the field, especially with defense, and obviously the passing game, so I do think there is progress and I would like to see what happens if given 3 years to turnover the roster and implement his philosophies fully.

Second, firing him now could easily start a HC revolving door. We bring in the next guy, he rotates out a lot of the roster, maybe all those aging veteran pickups, implements his schemes and we are now in another rebuild period. He struggles his first two years, and bam, we are on to HC number three.

I think we are in this deep, we need to fully play this hand and see what happens.

I think this is the part that 90% of the people clamoring for him to be fired don't understand. Anyone rooting for him to be fired after 2 years is rooting for us to become the next Lions or Browns, because those are the type of teams who switch out coaches every couple of years and never get any better.

Bosco
10-21-2010, 05:49 PM
I only have a few minutes, so have to keep it short.

I have to see the rest of the games before making a call, but from what I have seen so far, I say yes, he gets another year. I say that for two reasons:

First, I do see progress. Unfortunately, not in the record, but in terms of play on the field, especially with defense, and obviously the passing game, so I do think there is progress and I would like to see what happens if given 3 years to turnover the roster and implement his philosophies fully.

Second, firing him now could easily start a HC revolving door. We bring in the next guy, he rotates out a lot of the roster, maybe all those aging veteran pickups, implements his schemes and we are now in another rebuild period. He struggles his first two years, and bam, we are on to HC number three.

I think we are in this deep, we need to fully play this hand and see what happens.

Agreed.

HORSEPOWER 56
10-21-2010, 05:52 PM
It depends on the final outcome along with whether or not there is a lockout next year. If we're 7-9 and there is a football season next year, maybe I don't pull the trigger on canning him just yet.

If we end up 7-9 and the lockout happens, that's a different story. Now I have a whole year to look at coaches and I may decide to make the switch depending on who is available and who is interested. Maybe I'll shop around a little before I fire him and if he complains about it or resigns, I can say I "just answered the phone". It would be interesting to see how McDaniels would react if the shoe was on the other foot and he thought I was looking to replace him...;)

jhildebrand
10-21-2010, 06:13 PM
Indy, Tenn, NYJ, Balt is an "easier" schedule? Didnt someone post that denvers schedule was against the highest winning percentage in the league?
Plus, I credit jax as well. Healthy team in front of one of their biggest crowds, stoked for the year. And PCaroll has Sea playing better than many projected.

I wont even go into their youth/new faces/new DC/injuries. Not giddy about the 2-4, but I am OPTIMISTIC.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

The rally cry all offseason from McD supporters in defense of our epic collapse last year and finishin 2-8 was the strength of schedule.

MANY pointed to this year's schedule being MUCH easier, one of which was you. Why are you backing down from that position now? :confused:

jhildebrand
10-21-2010, 06:14 PM
It doesn't matter what we think. It only matters what Bowlen thinks and there is simply zero chance that Josh doesn't finish out his contract at the very minimum.

Way to broaden the conversation. Try reading the thread :rolleyes:

Lonestar
10-21-2010, 06:24 PM
Agreed. And MCD isnt goin anywhere no matter how they finish.
The Tebow signing only highlights this. Bowlen signed off on MCD
trading up and getting another 1st to take his guy, who he will
develop.
Get used to MCD here for another year regardless.

Guess you and I about the only ones that see it this way.

Pat is not dumb enough to start the coaching spiral after two years. Especially with all the skells he was left with. 32 at last count that are no longer in the NFL. 60% of mikes last roster can make it in the NFL today.
What more is there to say.

You do not replace that many kids in to years.

Have to wonder what the dead cap space on those 32 was?
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

OrangeHoof
10-21-2010, 06:58 PM
Keep in mind that getting the NFC West in your rotation is like getting a bye week. If you can't be two games better just by playing the weakest division in pro football means you're not even as good as your record suggests.

By rights, an average team in another AFC conference should get at least six or seven wins out of 10 games against the AFC West and NFC West so, IMO, 7-9 this year is like 5-11 in a regular year.

Day1BroncoFan
10-21-2010, 07:00 PM
I can't vote since the choice I have is not there. I would not call it progress but I still think McD gets another year.

I still have to wait and see how, why and who we would lose to.

The Glue Factory
10-21-2010, 08:23 PM
Guess you and I about the only ones that see it this way.

Pat is not dumb enough to start the coaching spiral after two years. Especially with all the skells he was left with. 32 at last count that are no longer in the NFL. 60% of mikes last roster can make it in the NFL today.
What more is there to say.

You do not replace that many kids in to years.

Have to wonder what the dead cap space on those 32 was?


Which will add a couple of years to be able to get a good evaluation of what McDaniels is capable of. But the first indications are that he's taking the team in the right direction since he has essentially equalled the previous HC in performance after pitching out the NFL rejects we had on the team.

I find these kinds of discussions funny in that our opinions will make about an ant's turd of difference to what actually happens in Dove Valley, but my prediction is that McDaniels is around at least 5 years. If the team hasn't gotten to the playoffs by then, I would think Bowlen is at least entertaining thoughts of getting someone else if not taking action.

TXBRONC
10-21-2010, 09:05 PM
If Denver goes 7-9 I wouldn't call progress but I also don't think it would be seen as regression. If we get to double digit loses then I think the ice beneath McDaniels' skates will start getting thin.

TXBRONC
10-21-2010, 09:10 PM
Yeah, BDB has it right.

He is a smart and handsome man.

You only say that because the guy is your brother-in-law. :D

Dreadnought
10-21-2010, 09:26 PM
I think especially given the work he has done with Kyle Ortyon that McDaniels certainly has some talents. He may at some point be a good to great head coach. I just don't think it will be in Denver. He has too much growing up to do and some personality issues to work out before he's ready. Shanahan needed the same, as did Belichick. Dungy and Gruden won Superbowls with their second teams as well, so he's in good company.

He'll get another year or probably more likely two, then we reenter the carousel.

BroncoWave
10-21-2010, 10:24 PM
MANY pointed to this year's schedule being MUCH easier, one of which was you. Why are you backing down from that position now? :confused:

Are you serious? Come on now, don't play dumb. You know very well that our first 6 games have turned out to be tougher than they looked like they would be before the season started. I don't think most folks expected the Jets to be a top 5 team or for the Seahawks and Jaguars to both be improved. Not a single team we have played so far has a losing record. I don't think a single person saw that being the case.

BORDERLINE
10-21-2010, 10:33 PM
unless he doesn't win a game for the rest of the year, then i believe he will be here next year. I want him here next year his system should be hitting on all cylinders by next year. Now if in his 3rd season he can't make a strong push for the SB we should explore other options, and i mean make sure whoever we bring can turn it around with his players learning his scheme not to gut the roster again.

CHARLIEADAMSFAN
10-21-2010, 10:46 PM
Pulling the plug on him would be premature. Giving him 3 years allows him to show full potential. Unless a Cowher or someone like that wants to come to Denver give him another year.

dogfish
10-21-2010, 11:04 PM
i'm just going to copy/paste my post from the other thread, because the answer is the same. . .



i don't think ANYTHING is worse for a franchise than the perpetual cycle of rebuilding, so i would give mcdaniels another year more or less regardless of how things play out the rest of this season. . .

no one can convince me that firing him and starting over improves our odds of being a good team. . . when you change schemes as completely as we did on both sides of the ball-- especially when one side was as utterly talent-defficient as our defense-- it's just not an overnight process, no matter how desperately some people think it should be. . .

*shrugs*

i'd hate to spend several years acquiring personnel only to hire a new coach and start again if he wants to run different schemes. . . i'll take some continuity, thanks. . .

besides, mcD has the passing game absolutely humming, and he's getting it done with personnel that pretty much everyone considered junk before this season-- orton, lloyd and gaffney? plenty of people here didn't even want those guys back this year, and i freely admit i thought our passing game was going to be ugly before i saw what we were doing in preseason. . .

and i do feel like the defense is moving in the right direction, although the loss of doom and ayers, and subsequent lack of pass rush has really hamstrung the unit this year. . . the running game absolutely HAS to get better or i may change my mind, but i've said all along that i thought it could be midseason or later before the O-line started to come together. . . we'll see. . .

the good news is that we'll get both doom and ayers back next year, clady should be back to 100% after a full offseason's rest, our passing game still has room for improvement once we get DT's freakish talent fully integrated, and we have four picks in the first three rounds next year. . .

i keep saying this-- there's a LOT of work that still needs to get done, but i feel like the plan's more or less on track. . . we need to add some legit young front seven talent (specifically at nosetackle), a capable second back to pair with/challenge moreno, and probably one young OL with starter potential (either RT or LG, depending on where beadles ends up). . .

in terms of expectations, i won't get too hung up on record this year. . . i'd be happy as hell to make the playoffs any way possible, because that's what the goal should be, right? "you gotta be in it to win it". . . but if we don't make it, there are some other things i'll be looking at besides record. . .

were we competitive in every game?

did our young players progress?

were we able to get out of the season without any more serious injuries to valuable players?

obviously nobody wants to hear it from the organization, but i'm a fan and i can say whatever i want-- and i've looked at this as a rebuilding year all along. . . naturally i'd still rather see us kick ass and take names, but i didn't consider it a particularly reasonable expectation this year, unfortunately. . . i could be all bitter and rail to the heavens that I EXPECT BETTER, DAMN IT!!

but, that shit is way too dramatic for me most days. . . so i'm going to look for walton and beadles to make some strides, for DT to get on the field , etc etc. . . IMO next season should see us finish the heavy lifting of rebuilding the roster, although that work is never done. . . next year i will expect us to make the playoffs. . .

jhildebrand
10-21-2010, 11:04 PM
Are you serious? Come on now, don't play dumb. You know very well that our first 6 games have turned out to be tougher than they looked like they would be before the season started. I don't think most folks expected the Jets to be a top 5 team or for the Seahawks and Jaguars to both be improved. Not a single team we have played so far has a losing record. I don't think a single person saw that being the case.

Are you serious? :confused:

This is the weakest colts team we have seen in YEARS. They are beleagured by injuries. The Chiefs hung with them until the end....ON THE ROAD!!!!

The Jags? Please!!! They have been getting murdered by everbody but US. Oh and the Colts so see the point above :D

The Jets were in the AFC CG. We knew that during the end of last season when the comments were made that this season offered a MUCH EASIER schedule.

Finally, everybody referenced a better strength of schedule. I didnt make the comments, others did. However, I am expecting people to stick by them.

We have seen Far too often people try to change their argument at any cost or in an attempt to deflect from McD.

BroncoWave
10-21-2010, 11:10 PM
Are you serious? :confused:

This is the weakest colts team we have seen in YEARS. They are beleagured by injuries. The Chiefs hung with them until the end....ON THE ROAD!!!!

The Jags? Please!!! They have been getting murdered by everbody but US. Oh and the Colts so see the point above :D

The Jets were in the AFC CG. We knew that during the end of last season when the comments were made that this season offered a MUCH EASIER schedule.

Finally, everybody referenced a better strength of schedule. I didnt make the comments, others did. However, I am expecting people to stick by them.

We have seen Far too often people try to change their argument at any cost or in an attempt to deflect from McD.

We haven't played a team with a losing record. The stats speak for themselves.

If you said we'd have a weak schedule then through 6 games we haven't played a team with a losing record, you'd be stupid NOT to change your argument. That has nothing to do with defending McD. It's called looking at the facts and interpreting them as fact.

Now our schedule DOES get alot easier from here on out but it has been anything but easy so far. 4 of the 6 teams we have played can be argued as top 10 teams in the NFL (Titans, Jets, Ravens, Colts) and the other 2 have been better than anyone expected they would be (Jaguars, Seahawks).

Once again, this has nothing to do with McD. Facts are facts.

atwater27
10-21-2010, 11:50 PM
Are you serious? :confused:

This is the weakest colts team we have seen in YEARS. They are beleagured by injuries. The Chiefs hung with them until the end....ON THE ROAD!!!!

The Jags? Please!!! They have been getting murdered by everbody but US. Oh and the Colts so see the point above :D

The Jets were in the AFC CG. We knew that during the end of last season when the comments were made that this season offered a MUCH EASIER schedule.

Finally, everybody referenced a better strength of schedule. I didnt make the comments, others did. However, I am expecting people to stick by them.

We have seen Far too often people try to change their argument at any cost or in an attempt to deflect from McD.

What he said.:salute:

PAINTERDAVE
10-22-2010, 01:18 AM
I hope you knocked on wood typing that :eek: Orton goes down and people will remember this post....:tsk:

If Orton does NOT get injured...
it will be his first season ever not getting injured.

Zweems56
10-22-2010, 07:02 AM
McD has 2 more years minimum, barring an 0-16 season next year. You can write it down.

Northman
10-22-2010, 07:27 AM
Are you serious? :confused:

This is the weakest colts team we have seen in YEARS. They are beleagured by injuries. The Chiefs hung with them until the end....ON THE ROAD!!!!

The Jags? Please!!! They have been getting murdered by everbody but US. Oh and the Colts so see the point above :D

The Jets were in the AFC CG. We knew that during the end of last season when the comments were made that this season offered a MUCH EASIER schedule.

Finally, everybody referenced a better strength of schedule. I didnt make the comments, others did. However, I am expecting people to stick by them.

We have seen Far too often people try to change their argument at any cost or in an attempt to deflect from McD.


Yea, i dont understand that logic either. J-ville was 7-9 last year and are 3-3 right now so they arent lighting it up. And Seattle? They were 5-11 last year and are 3-2 to start so either their schedule is REALLY easy or Carroll is a better mastermind than McD because he has a winning record as opposed to our coach. Tennesse was 8-8 last year and are 4-2 right now. So bascially when it comes to teams "worthy" of praise we are 1-2 because im not sold on the Seahawks as their division isnt any better than ours in terms of quality teams. The only team they've beaten of note is Chicago.

BroncoWave
10-22-2010, 07:36 AM
Yea, i dont understand that logic either. J-ville was 7-9 last year and are 3-3 right now so they arent lighting it up. And Seattle? They were 5-11 last year and are 3-2 to start so either their schedule is REALLY easy or Carroll is a better mastermind than McD because he has a winning record as opposed to our coach. Tennesse was 8-8 last year and are 4-2 right now. So bascially when it comes to teams "worthy" of praise we are 1-2 because im not sold on the Seahawks as their division isnt any better than ours in terms of quality teams. The only team they've beaten of note is Chicago.

All of the teams you listed currently have a better winning percentage than they did last season. Thank you for proving my point.

Besides, the basis of comparison is last season. So even if you want to argue the two weakest teams we've played aren't that good (Seattle, Jax) they are still WAY better than the 2 worst teams we played through 6 games last season (Oakland, Cleveland).

BroncoWave
10-22-2010, 07:38 AM
Yea, i dont understand that logic either. J-ville was 7-9 last year and are 3-3 right now so they arent lighting it up. And Seattle? They were 5-11 last year and are 3-2 to start so either their schedule is REALLY easy or Carroll is a better mastermind than McD because he has a winning record as opposed to our coach. Tennesse was 8-8 last year and are 4-2 right now. So bascially when it comes to teams "worthy" of praise we are 1-2 because im not sold on the Seahawks as their division isnt any better than ours in terms of quality teams. The only team they've beaten of note is Chicago.

That is weaksauce North. You are a better poster than that.

Our coach was 5-0 in his first 5 games so there goes that logic.

Northman
10-22-2010, 07:59 AM
That is weaksauce North. You are a better poster than that.

Our coach was 5-0 in his first 5 games so there goes that logic.


Why is it weak sauce? Is the result of Seattle a lack of schedule strength or coaching? Many have claimed last years 6-0 start as luck or a mirage so either Carroll is just benefitting from a extremely weak schedule so far or the hawks are really good in which Carroll gets full credit for the turnaround with a winning record. Which is it? You yourself just pointed to Oak and Clev in that early run so is it that Mcd really is a bad coach or just a easy schedule? Take your pick.

BroncoWave
10-22-2010, 09:10 AM
Why is it weak sauce? Is the result of Seattle a lack of schedule strength or coaching? Many have claimed last years 6-0 start as luck or a mirage so either Carroll is just benefitting from a extremely weak schedule so far or the hawks are really good in which Carroll gets full credit for the turnaround with a winning record. Which is it? You yourself just pointed to Oak and Clev in that early run so is it that Mcd really is a bad coach or just a easy schedule? Take your pick.

It's weaksause because you're trying to claim Carroll is a better coach than McD based on his first 5 games despite the fact that McD started 5-0, and is also 1-0 against Carrol, in what was one of his biggest blowout wins as Broncos coach.

And other than Oak and Cle, we faced (and defeated) 4 division winners in our first 6 games. That was not an easy schedule at all. I'm simply arguing that this year's is tougher than last year's, not that last year's was easy.

Northman
10-22-2010, 09:37 AM
It's weaksause because you're trying to claim Carroll is a better coach than McD based on his first 5 games despite the fact that McD started 5-0, and is also 1-0 against Carrol, in what was one of his biggest blowout wins as Broncos coach.

Im not claiming anything. Im simply pointing out the inconsistencies of your guys arguements. Either you believe that Seattle is a worthy foe or you dont. If you believe that Seattle is "good" than you have to look at their record thus far, schedule, and divsion. If you believe that Seattle has played "tough" opponents than Seattle must be good and lost to a "supposed" better team in Denver. Yet, if thats the case than overall Carroll has already done a better job than McD. I however, dont accept that and believe Seattle is vastly overrated.


And other than Oak and Cle, we faced (and defeated) 4 division winners in our first 6 games. That was not an easy schedule at all. I'm simply arguing that this year's is tougher than last year's, not that last year's was easy.

Indeed, last year was surprising with the wins over Dallas and NE. But this year aside from NY, Bmore, and Tenn (we are 1-2) i wouldnt consider the Jags nor Seattle to be quality opponents.

I will say this, if we can go out and absolutely DEMOLISH both Oak and SF i will adjust my views. But if we win by the skin of our teeth i wont be convinced that we are that good as some want to paint us.

Ravage!!!
10-22-2010, 09:55 AM
They have a better win percentage than they did last year, after 6 games? :confused: That means about as much as squat!! :lol:

BroncoWave
10-22-2010, 10:41 AM
They have a better win percentage than they did last year, after 6 games? :confused: That means about as much as squat!! :lol:

When we only played 3 games, we won 33% of our games and had a bigger WIN % than we ended up with last year!! I guess that proves, right there, that we are on the path to a 12 win season!

33% > 50% :confused:

Slick
10-22-2010, 10:50 AM
I expected 5 wins this season so a 7-9 record wouldn't drive me off the deep end.

Who would we get to replace him? Are we ready to wait 3 more years for the new guy to blow up Josh's stuff and implement his?

I realize that most of you aren't accepting Injuries as an excuse. Doom, Goodman, Ayers, Harris, Clady, Moreno...that's 6 starters at least...I'm sure I'm forgetting someone, me personally, I'll give the man some slack.

Yes the good teams overcome the injuries, but it's much tougher on a team rebuilding and looking for an identity.

Or maybe I just have more patience than some.

rcsodak
10-22-2010, 11:07 AM
The rally cry all offseason from McD supporters in defense of our epic collapse last year and finishin 2-8 was the strength of schedule.

MANY pointed to this year's schedule being MUCH easier, one of which was you. Why are you backing down from that position now? :confused:
link?
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

arapaho2
10-22-2010, 11:09 AM
I would hope out owner isn't stupid enough to fire McD if we go 7-9 this season. You know why teams like the Browns, Raiders, Lions, and Bills are picking in the top 10 every season? Because those teams don't give their coaches a chance to rebuild those teams and get a few years of continuity going.


wrong...sometimes its because managment picks the wrong coach...period

a solid coach with a plan, a leader the team buys into...a coach who will gladly take the talent already on the team, changes whats broken, tweaks what isnt..will always show improvment early..ala RYAN and the jets...

romeo had four years to change it around in clevleand...did he?

mangini had three seasons with the jets...enter ryan...BOOM!!

herm did nothing with the jets five seasons and a losing record..then
was looked at as the saviour of the chiefs...nothing but three years of failure

we all should be able to look at the team we follow...as i have for decades...and honestly and without bias say are we improved under the leadership of MCD?

is 4-12 over the last 16 games going in the right direction?..if it is we might as well kept shanny

rcsodak
10-22-2010, 11:30 AM
wrong...sometimes its because managment picks the wrong coach...period

a solid coach with a plan, a leader the team buys into...a coach who will gladly take the talent already on the team, changes whats broken, tweaks what isnt..will always show improvment early..ala RYAN and the jets...

romeo had four years to change it around in clevleand...did he?

mangini had three seasons with the jets...enter ryan...BOOM!!

herm did nothing with the jets five seasons and a losing record..then
was looked at as the saviour of the chiefs...nothing but three years of failure

we all should be able to look at the team we follow...as i have for decades.. is 4-12 over the last 16 games going in the right direction?..if it is we might as well kept shanny
Whether you know it or not, you just backed up BTB's point with your NYJ scenario.
10-12 over McD's tenure, in rebuilding mode, just shows he's doing it while bypassng the 4-5 win seasons. Thats a win, to me.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

NightTrainLayne
10-22-2010, 11:36 AM
As far as the argument about strength of schedule goes, let's look at a ranking based solely on #'s, the Sagarin Computer Ratings:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/nfl10.htm?loc=interstitialskip

According to that, and it is completely number's/computer driven, no human opinion involved, we have played the 2nd toughest schedule so far, only second to Baltimore.

That tells me two things.

1. Baltimore is a freaking juggernaut, and they should be favorites for the Super-Bowl from the AFC.

2. Denver has a LOT to look forward to as the schedule softens up from this point forward.

There is no doubt that we have faced a tough schedule so far. You can try and discount some of these teams based on "last year" but in the NFL last year doesn't mean squat.

BroncoWave
10-22-2010, 11:40 AM
As far as the argument about strength of schedule goes, let's look at a ranking based solely on #'s, the Sagarin Computer Ratings:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/nfl10.htm?loc=interstitialskip

According to that, and it is completely number's/computer driven, no human opinion involved, we have played the 2nd toughest schedule so far, only second to Baltimore.

That tells me two things.

1. Baltimore is a freaking juggernaut, and they should be favorites for the Super-Bowl from the AFC.

2. Denver has a LOT to look forward to as the schedule softens up from this point forward.

There is no doubt that we have faced a tough schedule so far. You can try and discount some of these teams based on "last year" but in the NFL last year doesn't mean squat.

No NTL the numbers don't matter. We're only saying our schedule is tougher to make excuses for McD. It's not based on facts or anything.

jhildebrand
10-22-2010, 11:40 AM
As far as the argument about strength of schedule goes, let's look at a ranking based solely on #'s, the Sagarin Computer Ratings:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/nfl10.htm?loc=interstitialskip

According to that, and it is completely number's/computer driven, no human opinion involved, we have played the 2nd toughest schedule so far, only second to Baltimore.

That tells me two things.

1. Baltimore is a freaking juggernaut, and they should be favorites for the Super-Bowl from the AFC.

2. Denver has a LOT to look forward to as the schedule softens up from this point forward.

There is no doubt that we have faced a tough schedule so far. You can try and discount some of these teams based on "last year" but in the NFL last year doesn't mean squat.

It tells me the very people who insisted this year's schedule is light years easier didn't know what they were talking about just as many of us had told them.

NightTrainLayne
10-22-2010, 11:42 AM
It tells me the very people who insisted this year's schedule is light years easier didn't know what they were talking about just as many of us had told them.

It seems like every year for the past 5 or 6 I've heard about how "easy" next year's schedule will be.

It never is.

jhildebrand
10-22-2010, 11:43 AM
link?
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Go through your post history or that of others. I know it was said, others know it was said. I get tired of doing your homework for you.

BroncoWave
10-22-2010, 11:43 AM
It tells me the very people who insisted this year's schedule is light years easier didn't know what they were talking about just as many of us had told them.

From this point forward our schedule is ridiculously easy. There's really no excuse not to AT LEAST go 6-4 in our last 10 games.

Gimpygod
10-22-2010, 11:45 AM
Are you serious? Come on now, don't play dumb. You know very well that our first 6 games have turned out to be tougher than they looked like they would be before the season started. I don't think most folks expected the Jets to be a top 5 team or for the Seahawks and Jaguars to both be improved. Not a single team we have played so far has a losing record. I don't think a single person saw that being the case.

don't you play stupid! Why are those teams better than expected? Because they improved by actually getting better and winning games. Unlike the fantasy progress we have supposedly made. The Jets in particular really stand out on this point for me, Rex Ryan takes over a team the exact same year as McDaniels and gets them to the playoffs with a rookie quarterback… Rookie! Only the most self-deluded could possibly harbor the idea we wouldn't have been infinitely better off hiring Rex Ryan instead of McDaniels. He would have left the offense intact and used his draft picks to fix the defense (the place where the non-NFL talents roosted). We would have made the playoffs last year and be pressing for a Super Bowl berth this year instead of splitting hairs about how 7-9 can be seen as improvement.

jhildebrand
10-22-2010, 11:48 AM
From this point forward our schedule is ridiculously easy. There's really no excuse not to AT LEAST go 6-4 in our last 10 games.

That's what we were told last year about the schedule following the Pitt game. We saw what happened.

I am not saying I expect it to happen again. I am simply stating it is a mistake to look off to the horizon of our schedule and start chalking up W's and L's. ANYTHING CAN AND DOES HAPPEN.

I think it is a byproduct of parity in this league. I think the line between very bad teams is much more fine than people might think.

At the end of the day, I am like you and am encouraged by the remainder of our schedule. I am hoping this team can string some W's together.

jhildebrand
10-22-2010, 11:49 AM
It seems like every year for the past 5 or 6 I've heard about how "easy" next year's schedule will be.

It never is.

It's been the curse of our collapses. We end up with second place schedules in years the Pats and other juggernauts had off years and we end up facing them and the Colts and the Ravens. It seems like we have played them the last five years running.

Meanwhile SD, who at times all but defaulted into a first place sched, end up with some of the easiest schedules based on SOS. Its crazy.

LordTrychon
10-22-2010, 11:54 AM
7-9 and division champs? I'll take it.

:D

Seriously though, it depends on how we look on our way to that record. Are we being blown out by the dredges of the league?

We'd have to be a few games still south of 7-9 to consider firing McD. I think 3 years is a fair shake unless something really bad is going down.

I will not be happy with 7-9. I won't be picketing either though.

BroncoWave
10-22-2010, 11:55 AM
That's what we were told last year about the schedule following the Pitt game. We saw what happened.

I am not saying I expect it to happen again. I am simply stating it is a mistake to look off to the horizon of our schedule and start chalking up W's and L's. ANYTHING CAN AND DOES HAPPEN.

I think it is a byproduct of parity in this league. I think the line between very bad teams is much more fine than people might think.

At the end of the day, I am like you and am encouraged by the remainder of our schedule. I am hoping this team can string some W's together.

I'm not chalking anything up as a W or L. I'm just saying based on how good I think we are and how good the rest of our schedule looks, we SHOULD finish 6-4. Anything less will be a disappointment. I think we're just as good as or better than every team left on our schedule, other than maybe Houston.

Gimpygod
10-22-2010, 12:18 PM
All of the teams you listed currently have a better winning percentage than they did last season. Thank you for proving my point.

Besides, the basis of comparison is last season. So even if you want to argue the two weakest teams we've played aren't that good (Seattle, Jax) they are still WAY better than the 2 worst teams we played through 6 games last season (Oakland, Cleveland).

let us just end once and for all the idea that logic in any way influences your opinions of the Broncos and McDaniels in particular. We need look no further than this thread and this post. Here you state with utmost confidence that these teams are better because their record is better this year as opposed to last. You are taking this position to bolster McDaniels which is fine because you are a fan of his, however it's not irrefutable logic. Earlier in the very same thread you take the position, again to support McDaniels, that our record of 2-4 is not representative of us regressing, in fact the proposal is we have somehow made progress. The two positions are logically exclusive and contradictory.

arapaho2
10-22-2010, 12:22 PM
Whether you know it or not, you just backed up BTB's point with your NYJ scenario.
10-12 over McD's tenure, in rebuilding mode, just shows he's doing it while bypassng the 4-5 win seasons. Thats a win, to me.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums


how does letting mangini and edwards have multiple years of frutility just because they wanna let a coach have time ...and still fail, prove his point

his contention is we should give mcd time..because teams that change coaches often arent good...

my views is the right coach, changes the record imediatly...look at the falcons, jets, ravens

harbough comes in and improves a 5 win team to a 11 win team in his first season..with a rookie qb..same with the jets..falcons

so if we give mcd two more seasons..with the same outcomes..how is that benefitting us? as opposed to cutting our loss and getting the right coach like a ryan that comes in and imediatly changes the entire mentality , record and preformance of a team without totaly dismantleing it, and shows season long improvment.

how is it bettering the team by giving a under preforming coach more time?

Northman
10-22-2010, 12:22 PM
As far as the argument about strength of schedule goes, let's look at a ranking based solely on #'s, the Sagarin Computer Ratings:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/nfl10.htm?loc=interstitialskip

According to that, and it is completely number's/computer driven, no human opinion involved, we have played the 2nd toughest schedule so far, only second to Baltimore.

That tells me two things.

1. Baltimore is a freaking juggernaut, and they should be favorites for the Super-Bowl from the AFC.

2. Denver has a LOT to look forward to as the schedule softens up from this point forward.

There is no doubt that we have faced a tough schedule so far. You can try and discount some of these teams based on "last year" but in the NFL last year doesn't mean squat.

Actually, im discounting some of those teams this year.

arapaho2
10-22-2010, 12:24 PM
From this point forward our schedule is ridiculously easy. There's really no excuse not to AT LEAST go 6-4 in our last 10 games.


wrong...i believe there will be a plethora of excuse from the mcd apologist if we fail this season

rcsodak
10-22-2010, 12:34 PM
As far as the argument about strength of schedule goes, let's look at a ranking based solely on #'s, the Sagarin Computer Ratings:http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/nfl10.htm?loc=interstitialskip
According to that, and it is completely number's/computer driven, no human opinion involved, we have played the 2nd toughest schedule so far, only second to Baltimore.
That tells me two things.
1. Baltimore is a freaking juggernaut, and they should be favorites for the Super-Bowl from the AFC.
2. Denver has a LOT to look forward to as the schedule softens up from this point forward.
There is no doubt that we have faced a tough schedule so far. You can try and discount some of these teams based on "last year" but in the NFL last year doesn't mean squat.
.... :coffee: what he ^^^^ said..... :coffee:
jax was full strength gm1....3rd string qb now
indy was hurt but not as bad as now-clark IR
tenn was healthy
sea has beaten sd/4-1 chi THERE
jets/balt top5s
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Nomad
10-22-2010, 12:38 PM
I guess I'll reserve my judgement of Mcdaniel's to see how the BRONCOS play in the second half of the season! A strong finish will give me hope but if we finish like the last 4 yrs then it'll be hard to question Dove Valley as a whole especially Bowlen!!

I understand team's need to have depth and injuries shouldn't be an excuse, but the BRONCO's are a MASH unit and I wonder what this team would be like 100% healthy and we could really see what McDaniel's has built so far!!

rcsodak
10-22-2010, 12:49 PM
Go through your post history or that of others. I know it was said, others know it was said. I get tired of doing your homework for you.
Translation: I screwed the pooch and can't back up my post.

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

jhildebrand
10-22-2010, 01:00 PM
Translation: I screwed the pooch and can't back up my post.

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

No the translation is I don't care to play childish games with you. You rarely broaden the debate and you rarely offer anything of substance let alone original thought. More often than not if you aren't backpedaling or riding the coattails of another poster you are simply baiting.

Funny you are the only one disputing that people declared this seasons schedule easier.

jhildebrand
10-22-2010, 01:01 PM
From this point forward our schedule is ridiculously easy. There's really no excuse not to AT LEAST go 6-4 in our last 10 games.

I hope you're right. I would love to see a 9-7 10-6 team. I wouldn't cry over an 8-8 finish though.

rcsodak
10-22-2010, 01:04 PM
how does letting mangini and edwards have multiple years of frutility just because they wanna let a coach have time ...and still fail, prove his point

his contention is we should give mcd time..because teams that change coaches often arent good...

my views is the right coach, changes the record imediatly...look at the falcons, jets, ravens.
so if we give mcd two more seasons..with the same outcomes..how is that benefitting us? as opposed to cutting our loss and getting the right coach like a ryan that comes in and imediatly changes the entire mentality , record and preformance of a team without totaly dismantleing it, and shows season long improvment.
how is it bettering the team by giving a under preforming coach more time?
because your example was of a team that went how many years and 3 coaches before it got fixed. How do you knw there IS a coach out there that can do it? Assume much? And you list 3teams. How many HAVENT had that kind of success?
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Nomad
10-22-2010, 01:09 PM
I don't consider any easy schedule in the NFL especially divisional opponents and I don't believe in trap games. I do believe every year the BRONCOS record should be no worse than 8-8 because we should never lose at home (I have gotten rid of my past pessimistic side:lol:)!! I believe I'll pull my hair out if we lose to the Raiders again in Denver!! It won't happen though!!

rcsodak
10-22-2010, 01:16 PM
No the translation is I don't care to play childish games with you. You rarely broaden the debate and you rarely offer anything of substance let alone original thought. More often than not if you aren't backpedaling or riding the coattails of another poster you are simply baiting.

Funny you are the only one disputing that people declared this seasons schedule easier.
since youre into personal attacks heres 1 for you. Youre full of shit. I state my own feelings. I dont make shit up as you just did. I bring plenty to the boards witnessed by my hi5's from more than your little group of mcd haters, baiters(not just my opine).
welcome to iggy. You wont be missed.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

jhildebrand
10-22-2010, 01:22 PM
Obviously you were not around here or you were living in a van down by the river if you "pretty much think every bronco fan predicted 7-9 wins last season".

After the brutal schedule the broncos had last season......ANY schedule should be easier......but that doesn't matter if the team doesn't improve in many areas....


Schedule is decent. A lot will depend on how our team looks after the Draft.


A heck of a lot easier than the last years...


from a paper standpoint this early out its are easiest schedule in the last 3 years


It doesn't get any easier than the NFC West..

Suppose that is made up. I can go on for days, RC.

You have consistently been schooled by most members on this board. Your typical response when someone counters any point you actually make or proves you wrong is SILENCE.

Please do put me on iggy. It wont hurt my feelings none.

I'll continue to dig up even more posts proclaiming this schedule to be much easier! I will even find yours. Why? Because you insist on playing childish little games like this trying to pretend you never made the comment.

Grow up and be a man, don't try to hide from your posts. I have no problem admitting I am wrong (which can be often). Give it a try.

As for the MHS' I could really not care any less. High school was 15 years ago for me. I left the popularity contests there.

jhildebrand
10-22-2010, 01:27 PM
because your example was of a team that went how many years and 3 coaches before it got fixed. How do you knw there IS a coach out there that can do it? Assume much? And you list 3teams. How many HAVENT had that kind of success?
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

This is the kind of crap I'm talking about RC. Arapaho and myself listed more than a handful of teams who let coaches stand for more than the 2-3 year time frame but you insist on playing childish word games.

Why not address the post head on? :confused: Because you can't. You obvbiously seem to lack origninal thought.

Furthermore, the converse to your argument could easily be listed. Going through coaches does not automatically make you a doormat. Bad drafting does. Bad drafting and a coaching carousel guarantees it. However, there have been plenty of teams that have changed coaches with regularity and still won SB's. SF did it with Walsh and Seifert. Dallas did it with Johnson and Switzer. The Giants have changed coaches often and they have a SB under Tom Coughlin.

Ravage!!!
10-22-2010, 01:38 PM
Pittsburgh... NE went to the Super Bowl with the Tuna before Belicheck. Denver went to the Super Bowl in 77 before our 80's runs... then of course again in the 90's with yet a different coach. Indianapolis just went back to the Super Bowl with a different coach. Didn't take Atlanta long to go to the Super Bowl once they got Reeves.

Then of course you have the change in the Browns, Chiefs, and San Diego with the adding of Schottenheimer. Perfect example as to just how much a good coach can make a difference.

I think the Chiefs were only a 4 win team last year... yet even though they have a terrible QB behind center, are now leading the AFC West just in the coach's second season with the team.

Arizona was bad before the addition of Whizenhunt. He turned them around quickly.

Look what Chucky did for the Raiders.

Lonestar
10-22-2010, 02:23 PM
Only the most self-deluded could possibly harbor the idea we wouldn't have been infinitely better off hiring Rex Ryan instead of McDaniels. He would have left the offense intact and used his draft picks to fix the defense (the place where the non-NFL talents roosted). We would have made the playoffs last year and be pressing for a Super Bowl berth this year instead of splitting hairs about how 7-9 can be seen as improvement.. Speaking of the self deluded

Just who was going to run mike playbook.

Did you even stop to think Pat saw the handwriting on the wall. Know that mike scheme failed us since all the hof talent retired.

Get used to the fact Pat hired the guy to rebuild the team using the NE model.

Your perciuos whining primadonnas did not want to be part of our team any more.

Btw ryan took over a damned fine team. That ne3ly issed the playoffs the year before had farves elbow IIRC had not been injured that squad was an almost lock to go.

I would never hire a blow hard like ryan he is a no class cretin.

I'd rather have a losing program than be embarassed by his persona.

Get over your hate of all things Josh and move on he is not going anywhere unless Pat catches Josh with his hand on his wifes ass. :laugh:
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

T.K.O.
10-22-2010, 02:26 PM
kc has 1 more win than the broncos.....and will likely end up with a worse record.
saying their "new coach" has fixed the team is silly.
no different than saying mcD's 6 game win streak last year "fixed" the broncos.
if we finish the year strong and beat down some division rivals....broncos fans will be OK with what mcD is doing:salute:
if we get smacked by the raiders and chiefs at home.....DUCK !:laugh:

Lonestar
10-22-2010, 03:05 PM
There are always continuity surprises. Somone mentioned walsh to siefrt.johnson to sierft. Mickey mouse could have fllowed those to legend coaches with the talent they left behind and they could have coasted a few years.

Gruden took two losers to the superbowl at the same time TPA/OAK. Ahahaha

He built that OAK team told Al to go to his room, leave him alone and when he got tired of his BS engineered a couple of first rounders to get himself out of OAK. Since then OAK has sucked except against DEN.

The crows, jets and falcons were not devoid of as much talent as DEN was.

Jets needed a QB as did ATL and BAL.

They all got one in the draft early and then made them game managers. Sanchez last year would have been run out of DEN with the numbers he had.

Now we are finding out that flacco was great last year but is not getting the secondary reads progressions that he should be at this point. **** strong but dumber than a post.

Btw had the colts noy rolled over late last year the jets would not even. Be in this conversation.

In summary some new guys fall into a great spot lots of talent drafted in years prior a top 5 maybe 10 pick. All they needed was a real coach.

We were not one of those teams we had a few stars QB, wr, CB maybe DJ, a budding DE pass rusher and OLT. And zero depth behind any of the starters whom on D everyone sucked 8 of which are no longer starters in fact IIRC 7 are not in the NFL any longer.

So it is not just starters on D but preety much everyone but maybe 6-7 players. Almost no one on O save jay marshall clady kuper were keepers that means could convert to PBS scheme that PAT WANTED.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Ravage!!!
10-22-2010, 03:26 PM
kc has 1 more win than the broncos.....and will likely end up with a worse record.
saying their "new coach" has fixed the team is silly.
no different than saying mcD's 6 game win streak last year "fixed" the broncos.
if we finish the year strong and beat down some division rivals....broncos fans will be OK with what mcD is doing:salute:
if we get smacked by the raiders and chiefs at home.....DUCK !:laugh:

You obviously haven't watched many Chief games this year.

jhildebrand
10-22-2010, 03:27 PM
There are always continuity surprises. Somone mentioned walsh to siefrt.johnson to sierft. Mickey mouse could have fllowed those to legend coaches with the talent they left behind and they could have coasted a few years.

Really? O'Campo didn't coast. Caldwell is by no means coasting. I don't think your comment is too accurate. Did SF coast? Nope.

Ravage!!!
10-22-2010, 03:36 PM
Bowlen did NOT hire with the perspective of "rebuilding." Thats false. There was NO "rebuilding" need for the offense. It was considered to be one of the best, young, talented offenses in the NFL with the VERY best OL. What about THAT, speaks of a need to rebuild? Nothing. We are DEVOID of talent NOW on offense. Not after the '08 season. We have LESS talent on the team, as we speak, two years later than we did. Thats NOT how you "rebuild" if that was your initial plan. If it was, get a new plan.

Coaches go all over the NFL and work with the players already on the roster. The best example is in SD. Norv Turner didn't "rebuild" the offense that Marty left. He worked with the players they had. Go figure.

If you are going to say that Rex Ryan only succeeded in NY because he didn't "rebuild" an already good unit..... BINGO! Exactly. He didn't create more holes and worked with what he already had.

Rex Ryan has done a GREAT job in NY. If you are trying to diminish his role in their success, then you are doing it for the SOLE purpose to tear down in attempt to make others look better. That seems to be on par around here.

NightTrainLayne
10-22-2010, 04:52 PM
Bowlen did NOT hire with the perspective of "rebuilding." Thats false. There was NO "rebuilding" need for the offense. It was considered to be one of the best, young, talented offenses in the NFL with the VERY best OL. What about THAT, speaks of a need to rebuild? Nothing. We are DEVOID of talent NOW on offense. Not after the '08 season. We have LESS talent on the team, as we speak, two years later than we did. Thats NOT how you "rebuild" if that was your initial plan. If it was, get a new plan.

Coaches go all over the NFL and work with the players already on the roster. The best example is in SD. Norv Turner didn't "rebuild" the offense that Marty left. He worked with the players they had. Go figure.

If you are going to say that Rex Ryan only succeeded in NY because he didn't "rebuild" an already good unit..... BINGO! Exactly. He didn't create more holes and worked with what he already had.

Rex Ryan has done a GREAT job in NY. If you are trying to diminish his role in their success, then you are doing it for the SOLE purpose to tear down in attempt to make others look better. That seems to be on par around here.

I think that there is a valid argument to be had on both sides regarding the overall talent level of the team.

Certainly we've lost three very talented offensive players, but we've also improved the overall talent level of the defense quite a bit, and have I think a much better corps of receivers to look forward to for the next 5 years than we did. Marshall sent packing is a big minus, but the corps overall seem much better to me now.

Norv Turner in SD is a disingenuous example if you're trying to make an argument about coaches not changing players. . .He is part of an organization where 100% of the control of the roster is in the hands of the GM. That's the main reason there was a change in coaching staffs there. Of course, he wasn't going to change the roster. ..he doesn't have the authority to do so.

Rex Ryan has done a great job certainly, I'm not going to try and take anything away, but he didn't take over the Denver Broncos with something like 6 or 7 defensive starters from the 2008 season that aren't even in the NFL anymore.

The success Ryan has had is something we'd all like to see, but it is still just 22 games into each team's history with each coaching staff. Not quite the track record necessary for a definitive answer.

dogfish
10-22-2010, 05:09 PM
Marshall sent packing is a big minus


is it? i don't think it is. . . we've certainly replaced his production, but we've also replaced his talent-- D thomas is just as big and athletic, but he's faster. . . flat out, the only talent we've gotten rid of that we miss is hillis. . .

arapaho2
10-22-2010, 05:15 PM
because your example was of a team that went how many years and 3 coaches before it got fixed. How do you knw there IS a coach out there that can do it? Assume much? And you list 3teams. How many HAVENT had that kind of success?
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums


no..my example is of teams giving inferior head coached multiple years to produce a winnng team...and suffer them failing



as opposed to looking at the product on the field currently..which is 4 -12 over the past 16 games...if a HC cant change a 8-8 team full of young talent into at least a 9-7 team in two years is there really any reason to prolong the agony another 2 seasons before pulling the trigger?

there are a multitude of tams that did just that...give them time...and it sets them back another few years.

finding the right coach is key...not giving a underwhelming coach more time

dogfish
10-22-2010, 05:54 PM
no..my example is of teams giving inferior head coached multiple years to produce a winnng team...and suffer them failing



as opposed to looking at the product on the field currently..which is 4 -12 over the past 16 games...if a HC cant change a 8-8 team full of young talent into at least a 9-7 team in two years is there really any reason to prolong the agony another 2 seasons before pulling the trigger?

there are a multitude of tams that did just that...give them time...and it sets them back another few years.

finding the right coach is key...not giving a underwhelming coach more time

have you taken into consideration that if bowlen does fire josh, he's probably going to go out and hire another young, unproven guy? look at the coaches we interviewed last time-- along with josh it was raheem morris, steve spags, and leslie frazier, IIRC. . . did i miss somebody?

either way, we didn't look at bill cowher, or gruden or anybody like that. . . i'm not going to dig for the quote now, but i believe bowlen pretty much said he preferred hiring younger, offensive-minded coaches. . . doesn't guarantee that he wouldn't change his mind and go after cowher, but-- with no offense intended-- i think people talking about us getting a coach like that are pretty much just wasting time daydreaming. . .


also, orton has never been anything special outside of mcD's system, and neither has brandon lloyd. . . can another coach come in and keep orton producing the way he is right now? i doubt it-- looks to me like mcD's system is the passing game equivalent of shanahan's running scheme. . .

i do think D thomas has the skill set to flourish in any system, but i don't know if that's true of tebow. . . he was obviously a somewhat controversial prospect that not every team or coach wanted. . . if we bring in a new coach, will he want to work with tebow? or do we find ourselves back to not having a quarterback? because firing mcD ain't bringin' cutler back. . . if another HC/OC combo can't duplicate mcD's results with orton, we may very well be back to square one with a rookie QB, or whatever piece of shit vet like delhomme they can pull off the scrap heap. . .

so yea, i'm definitely happy in the belief that bowlen will give mcdaniels at least another year to see if the work of the past two years is going to bear fruit before scrapping it and starting from scratch. . .

Bosco
10-22-2010, 06:26 PM
Bowlen did NOT hire with the perspective of "rebuilding." Thats false. There was NO "rebuilding" need for the offense. It was considered to be one of the best, young, talented offenses in the NFL with the VERY best OL. What about THAT, speaks of a need to rebuild? Nothing. We are DEVOID of talent NOW on offense. Not after the '08 season. We have LESS talent on the team, as we speak, two years later than we did. Thats NOT how you "rebuild" if that was your initial plan. If it was, get a new plan.

Coaches go all over the NFL and work with the players already on the roster. The best example is in SD. Norv Turner didn't "rebuild" the offense that Marty left. He worked with the players they had. Go figure.

If you are going to say that Rex Ryan only succeeded in NY because he didn't "rebuild" an already good unit..... BINGO! Exactly. He didn't create more holes and worked with what he already had.

Rex Ryan has done a GREAT job in NY. If you are trying to diminish his role in their success, then you are doing it for the SOLE purpose to tear down in attempt to make others look better. That seems to be on par around here.

I don't feel like rehashing the Cutler/Scheffler/Marshall/Hillis bullshit again, however I wanted to point out that both the examples above in bold are incorrect. When Norv Turner took over the Chargers, he scrapped their West Coast Offense and installed the Air Coryell offense he's run for years. Rex Ryan scrapped the Fairbanks-Bullough 3-4 that Mangini had installed and replaced it was his signature 3-4/4-3 hybrid based off of the principles of the 46 defense that his dad was famous for.

LordTrychon
10-22-2010, 07:17 PM
is it? i don't think it is. . . we've certainly replaced his production, but we've also replaced his talent-- D thomas is just as big and athletic, but he's faster. . . flat out, the only talent we've gotten rid of that we miss is hillis. . .

Well, I see both sides of this.

Thing is that we certainly HOPE that DT can match Marshall's production and maybe even be better. He has the skillset to do so, but he's getting spot duty so far.

Problem is that even if he DOES, we could have potentially used the pick on someone else if we had kept Marshall.

I like DT. And Decker. I love how our WR corp is producing. I'm not even saying it was a bad idea to get rid of Marshall. That doesn't mean that we didn't subtract talent when we lost him.

Ravage!!!
10-22-2010, 07:39 PM
I don't feel like rehashing the Cutler/Scheffler/Marshall/Hillis bullshit again, however I wanted to point out that both the examples above in bold are incorrect. When Norv Turner took over the Chargers, he scrapped their West Coast Offense and installed the Air Coryell offense he's run for years. Rex Ryan scrapped the Fairbanks-Bullough 3-4 that Mangini had installed and replaced it was his signature 3-4/4-3 hybrid based off of the principles of the 46 defense that his dad was famous for.

Try reading instead of finding it in your agenda to correct things that aren't INCORRECT. I didn't say things weren't changed. He didn't REBUILD. THats a HUGE .. EFFING... difference.

Ravage!!!
10-22-2010, 07:47 PM
is it? i don't think it is. . . we've certainly replaced his production, but we've also replaced his talent-- D thomas is just as big and athletic, but he's faster. . . flat out, the only talent we've gotten rid of that we miss is hillis. . .

We don't know if DT is as talented in the LEAST yet. He hasn't done anything. He certainly hasn't produced on a consistent level, at all... yet. As we've seen from every position throughout the NFL... simply saying a guy has more "athletic ability"... doesn't mean squat.

We certainly haven't replaced his "production"... because no one has been able to explain to me how having him on the team makes guys like Lloyed WORSE instead of better?

Do we really believe that a guy like AP rushing for 1400 yrds for a team is the same as 3 different RBs rushing for 450? Total yards production isn't the same thing....imo.

T.K.O.
10-22-2010, 07:56 PM
You obviously haven't watched many Chief games this year.

are you saying i'm wrong ?
do you think the chiefs will finish better than the broncos ?
lets get it on record...here and now.
i just drove 2400 miles round trip to watch the broncos "out play" but lose to the jets.
am i bummed ? yes
do i see a team playing hard to win every week ? ....yes
i would put my money on a team that has been in contention for the div and the playoffs late every year over a team that has avg 3 wins a year for 3 years any day !:salute:

Ravage!!!
10-22-2010, 07:59 PM
I think that there is a valid argument to be had on both sides regarding the overall talent level of the team.

Certainly we've lost three very talented offensive players, but we've also improved the overall talent level of the defense quite a bit, and have I think a much better corps of receivers to look forward to for the next 5 years than we did. Marshall sent packing is a big minus, but the corps overall seem much better to me now.

Norv Turner in SD is a disingenuous example if you're trying to make an argument about coaches not changing players. . .He is part of an organization where 100% of the control of the roster is in the hands of the GM. That's the main reason there was a change in coaching staffs there. Of course, he wasn't going to change the roster. ..he doesn't have the authority to do so.

Rex Ryan has done a great job certainly, I'm not going to try and take anything away, but he didn't take over the Denver Broncos with something like 6 or 7 defensive starters from the 2008 season that aren't even in the NFL anymore.

The success Ryan has had is something we'd all like to see, but it is still just 22 games into each team's history with each coaching staff. Not quite the track record necessary for a definitive answer.

Our WR corp isn't more talented. Gaffney is bad. But Lloyed, Gaffney, Royal and no-one at TE is not better than Marshall, Lloyd, Royal and Scheffler.... hell and Gaffney thrown in. So I'm going to disagree with you that our receiving corp now looks brighter for the next five years when Marshall, Royal and Scheff were/are young players, just getting into their prime. At least THEY are proven players on the field rather than the "hope" we have with draft choices.

Turner may have not had the GM power, but he STILL used the talent that was given to him. COme on, we can try and pick at the tiny threads of difference like some chocolate drink-mix, but the example still holds true. Why would Norv Turner NOT use the talent on that team? It was one of the top jobs as a new coach coming in BECAUSE of the offensive talent SD possessed, just as Denver was.

As far as the Rex Ryan, I wouldn't expect any coach coming in and not adding to the defense. Its absolutely what we needed to do. But again, the point was that this team did NOT NEED to be "rebuilt" as some are suggesting. This was a team that needed help on the defense, which is absolutely what McD has done. But making holes on the offense only so we have to go back and try to fill those holes, only accomplishes going in circles... imo.

I haven't said that McD needs to be fired. I said that it would depend on how "I" would look at it after the season and after seeing how things finished the last part of THIS year. If there aren't more signs of SOMETHING showing some kind of improvment, I would take a serious consideration of replacing him BECAUSE this team waas NOT meant to be a "rebuilding" project when he was hired...despite him taking that approach and disposing of all the talent that he had available to him.

Ravage!!!
10-22-2010, 08:10 PM
are you saying i'm wrong ?
do you think the chiefs will finish better than the broncos ?
lets get it on record...here and now.
i just drove 2400 miles round trip to watch the broncos "out play" but lose to the jets.
am i bummed ? yes
do i see a team playing hard to win every week ? ....yes
i would put my money on a team that has been in contention for the div and the playoffs late every year over a team that has avg 3 wins a year for 3 years any day !:salute:


What are you talking about? Saying that you obviously haven't watched much of the chiefs is saying they are going to hav a better "record"? :confused: How does THAT translate?

The Chiefs have shown MORE improvement with their coach THIS year, and in the same time period that THEIR HC has been with the team than ours has with OUR new HC. They had 4 wins last year... they already nearly have as many wins AND are better this year than we are.

Also.. I have NO idea where your comparisons of last years or the years record/contention.. has ANYTHING to do with the improvements of the chiefs and how they are playing today. Seriously.

What is this juvenile "lets get this on record?" :lol: wow.... thats about as silly as anything I've seen you post. Seriously? "On record?" Come on dude.

**also, if the Broncos out-played the Jets, then same could be said for the Chiefs out-playing the Texans.

NightTrainLayne
10-22-2010, 08:44 PM
What are you talking about? Saying that you obviously haven't watched much of the chiefs is saying they are going to hav a better "record"? :confused: How does THAT translate?

The Chiefs have shown MORE improvement with their coach THIS year, and in the same time period that THEIR HC has been with the team than ours has with OUR new HC. They had 4 wins last year... they already nearly have as many wins AND are better this year than we are.

Also.. I have NO idea where your comparisons of last years or the years record/contention.. has ANYTHING to do with the improvements of the chiefs and how they are playing today. Seriously.

What is this juvenile "lets get this on record?" :lol: wow.... thats about as silly as anything I've seen you post. Seriously? "On record?" Come on dude.

**also, if the Broncos out-played the Jets, then same could be said for the Chiefs out-playing the Texans.


So if Josh McDaniels had only coached us to 4 wins total last year that would be great as long as he started out 3-1 this year?

Who knew, the secret to satisfying the anti-McD crowd is actually winning half as many games in the 1st season you take over a team?

jhildebrand
10-22-2010, 08:57 PM
I don't know how you fault a guy in KC who brings in big name, former HC coordinators instead of replacing them

:coffee:

jhildebrand
10-22-2010, 09:00 PM
I don't fault McDaniels for coming in here and remaking the roster as he saw fit. That is his right and his perogitive. Some don't like the feeling their tenure depends on another regimes' guys. I get that.

What I take issue with is the idea that the entire roster or large parts of it HAD TO BE REBUILT!

T.K.O.
10-22-2010, 09:48 PM
What are you talking about? Saying that you obviously haven't watched much of the chiefs is saying they are going to hav a better "record"? :confused: How does THAT translate?

The Chiefs have shown MORE improvement with their coach THIS year, and in the same time period that THEIR HC has been with the team than ours has with OUR new HC. They had 4 wins last year... they already nearly have as many wins AND are better this year than we are.

Also.. I have NO idea where your comparisons of last years or the years record/contention.. has ANYTHING to do with the improvements of the chiefs and how they are playing today. Seriously.

What is this juvenile "lets get this on record?" :lol: wow.... thats about as silly as anything I've seen you post. Seriously? "On record?" Come on dude.

**also, if the Broncos out-played the Jets, then same could be said for the Chiefs out-playing the Texans.

the broncos will beat the chiefs twice this year....ok ?

LordTrychon
10-22-2010, 09:58 PM
I'm sure this has already been said, but I missed Mike Leach this week.

jhildebrand
10-22-2010, 10:48 PM
I'm sure this has already been said, but I missed Mike Leach this week.

I was hoping someone would create a "did you see what Mike Leach did" thread. I nominated Frau but have yet to see one. You up for the task? He is the only one remaining who hasn't been given his just due :D

Ravage!!!
10-22-2010, 11:10 PM
So if Josh McDaniels had only coached us to 4 wins total last year that would be great as long as he started out 3-1 this year?

Who knew, the secret to satisfying the anti-McD crowd is actually winning half as many games in the 1st season you take over a team?

Come on NTL, thats crap and you are better than this. Thats not what I'm saying and you know it. Don't pull a rc.

McD took over an offense that was considered on of the best and youngest in the NFL with the best OL in the league. It was already an 8-8 team. The Chiefs had only won 6 games, total, the two season's prior to Haley even arriving. Don't try to make this an "anti-McD" observation, either. I've made it VERY VER clear that I absolutely DO NOT like Haley, at all.

If you guys can't see... or at least admit.... that the Chiefs have made bigger strides this year than we have, then there's nothing more that can be said. But don't pull that kind of lame junk.

Ravage!!!
10-22-2010, 11:12 PM
the broncos will beat the chiefs twice this year....ok ?

ok. :shrug:

HORSEPOWER 56
10-22-2010, 11:22 PM
This thread has gotten very personal very quickly (which we all knew deep down it would), but all I have to say is that you measure performance by Wins and Losses.

4-12 since the bye week last year. If anyone is actually happy about this or considers it an improvement then there is absolutely no use in arguing with you. Honestly, I'd fire my own mother if she could only coach the Broncos to 4-12 in their last 16 games. I don't give a shit if Mickey freakin' Mouse is the Broncos coach. This fanbase deserves better than 4-12 in the last 16 games.

People argue about the lack of talent (which is self inflicted) and the need to rebuild. An 8-8 football team really doesn't need a complete overhaul. Only 18.8% of the guys on the team in 2008 are still here. We did that to ourselves. We (the FO) decided to make a big splash and rebuild the team in its own image which is their prerogative, but when it leads to 4-12 over 16 games, it makes you really scratch your head and wonder if it was the right idea.

So, was it the right idea because it was necessary, or was it the right idea because McDaniels said it was? How long do we live with these results? Will it finally lead to losing our sell out streak and empty seats at home games? Change just for change's sake is never the right answer and if you do decide to change something for the better, shouldn't it actually get better?

Bosco
10-22-2010, 11:42 PM
Try reading instead of finding it in your agenda to correct things that aren't INCORRECT. I didn't say things weren't changed. He didn't REBUILD. THats a HUGE .. EFFING... difference.

When you completely overhaul the schemes, I'd say that would qualify as a rebuild.

Your whole point of contention seems to be that those guys didn't change players, but neither did McDaniels. The only significant starter from the 2008 offense that wasn't with us at the start of 2009 was Jay Cutler and that had zero to do with any scheme changes.


Our WR corp isn't more talented. Gaffney is bad. Ok, you seriously need to stop the misinformation campaign. Gaffney has been a 30+ catch a year receiver for all but one single season where he was hurt, and at his current pace he'd finish the year for 99 catches for 1088 yards, and that's as our #3 receiver.

Gaffney may not be an All-Pro, but anyone who seriously thinks he is "bad" should have their ******* head examined.

BroncoWave
10-22-2010, 11:54 PM
wrong...i believe there will be a plethora of excuse from the mcd apologist if we fail this season


When you completely overhaul the schemes, I'd say that would qualify as a rebuild.

Your whole point of contention seems to be that those guys didn't change players, but neither did McDaniels. The only significant starter from the 2008 offense that wasn't with us at the start of 2009 was Jay Cutler and that had zero to do with any scheme changes.

Ok, you seriously need to stop the misinformation campaign. Gaffney has been a 30+ catch a year receiver for all but one single season where he was hurt, and at his current pace he'd finish the year for 99 catches for 1088 yards, and that's as our #3 receiver.

Gaffney may not be an All-Pro, but anyone who seriously thinks he is "bad" should have their ******* head examined.

Seriously. I don't see how you could have watched Gaffney's last 8 games and say he is "bad".

This seems to me like someone clinging to some statements he made in the offseason and still wanting to be right.

HORSEPOWER 56
10-23-2010, 06:38 AM
When you completely overhaul the schemes, I'd say that would qualify as a rebuild.

Your whole point of contention seems to be that those guys didn't change players, but neither did McDaniels. The only significant starter from the 2008 offense that wasn't with us at the start of 2009 was Jay Cutler and that had zero to do with any scheme changes.

Ok, you seriously need to stop the misinformation campaign. Gaffney has been a 30+ catch a year receiver for all but one single season where he was hurt, and at his current pace he'd finish the year for 99 catches for 1088 yards, and that's as our #3 receiver.

Gaffney may not be an All-Pro, but anyone who seriously thinks he is "bad" should have their ******* head examined.

Our current offense is a stat machine, but not a win machine. Empty stats without the wins are just that... empty stats. Our offense is reminiscent of the Barry Sanders era in Detroit - putting up big stats and sometimes fun to watch because of the big, exciting plays, but just not effective at winning consistently enough to be competitive. The worst part is all those big plays do is give the fans false hope only to see us fail week after week when the chips are down.

We just don't play 4 quarters of football. <- that is the single biggest problem with this team. 7 points in the first quarter in 6 games? Being outscored repeatedly in the 4th quarter? These are all coaching issues.

McDaniels has done extremely well with making our passing game a dangerous one and, I truly believe, he has Orton, Gaffney, and Lloyd playing above their talent level which is what good coaches do. Unfortunately, it appears at the expense of other areas - our running game is as bad as I've ever seen it, our defense (although playing hard) is on the field too much and typically give up vital scores late in games, our STs are below average and if not for Prater, I would rate them as poor, and most importantly - with opportunity to win or tie games (having the last possession of the game in a one possession game with time and timeouts to easily move the length of the field) the offense that appears to be able to move the ball at will has only been successful 1 out of 3 times. We should've beaten the Jags and the Jets but we turned the ball over on our last drive in both games. Had we beaten them, we'd be sitting at a comfortable 4-2 leading the division not the miserable 2-4 and looking up at the Chiefs.

I'm no coach and I don't know what the real answer is but just going out and out-passing the competition every week is fantasy football gold, but has proven ineffective in winning games against playoff caliber football teams.

I do know that 4-12 is the WORST stretch in the NFL by any team not named the Detroit Lions.

atwater27
10-23-2010, 09:36 AM
It'a about time someone brought some horsepower into this thread.

dogfish
10-23-2010, 11:51 AM
Our current offense is a stat machine, but not a win machine. Empty stats without the wins are just that... empty stats. Our offense is reminiscent of the Barry Sanders era in Detroit - putting up big stats and sometimes fun to watch because of the big, exciting plays, but just not effective at winning consistently enough to be competitive. The worst part is all those big plays do is give the fans false hope only to see us fail week after week when the chips are down.

We just don't play 4 quarters of football. <- that is the single biggest problem with this team. 7 points in the first quarter in 6 games? Being outscored repeatedly in the 4th quarter? These are all coaching issues.

McDaniels has done extremely well with making our passing game a dangerous one and, I truly believe, he has Orton, Gaffney, and Lloyd playing above their talent level which is what good coaches do. Unfortunately, it appears at the expense of other areas - our running game is as bad as I've ever seen it, our defense (although playing hard) is on the field too much and typically give up vital scores late in games, our STs are below average and if not for Prater, I would rate them as poor, and most importantly - with opportunity to win or tie games (having the last possession of the game in a one possession game with time and timeouts to easily move the length of the field) the offense that appears to be able to move the ball at will has only been successful 1 out of 3 times. We should've beaten the Jags and the Jets but we turned the ball over on our last drive in both games. Had we beaten them, we'd be sitting at a comfortable 4-2 leading the division not the miserable 2-4 and looking up at the Chiefs.

I'm no coach and I don't know what the real answer is but just going out and out-passing the competition every week is fantasy football gold, but has proven ineffective in winning games against playoff caliber football teams.

I do know that 4-12 is the WORST stretch in the NFL by any team not named the Detroit Lions.

that right there is the lack of elvis dumervil, plain and simple. . .

Lonestar
10-23-2010, 12:32 PM
Some are saying we are rebuilding by choice.

Not sure how you do not have to do an almost total rebuild without changing schemes.

Of the players on d just how many of those guys on the roster could have started and played a high level in the 3-4.

That would have been TWO champ and DJ. NOBODY expected Doom to be a stud as an OLB and frankly he is a passer only I don't recall one time that he dropped back in coverage and made very few if any rushing stops so to say he was great as a true OLB would be a stretch.

So to say we did not need a total would unbeleiveably dumb.

As for O now here there can be a slight debate.

Just how many on O could have switched to spread/PBS.

I say
jay
BM
Clady
Graham
Royal
Absolutely,

past that not sure about any of the old players could tranistion

Ts not at all a blocking TE.

Hamilton not strong enuff same for

weigman plus he is older than dirt.

Kuper maybe becuase they extended him to a modest contract.

Harris never thought he was as good as some did. Seems like he is a goner long term.
None of the running backs save Hillis and there still seems to be a learning curve issue with him getting new set of plays each week and his blocking skills well let's be kind and say they were colligate.

So let's recap

QB that wanted out od DEN
Wr that was a head case. Go to go
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

spikerman
10-23-2010, 01:02 PM
It wouldn't break my heart to see McDaniels go, but I think he will, and probably should, get at least one more year. The immediate change needs to come from above him. It's just like the Shanahan years toward the end. I think Denver needs to bring in a Director of Pro Personnel (Pat, I'm available :)). Xanders is a money man, not a talent evaluator and i don't think McDaniels is a strong talent evaluator either. I would love to see Bowlen finally do what he said he was going to do and not give the coach such ultimate power. He needs to bring in a proven guy who is responsible for building the roster, let Xanders handle the money, and let McDaniels coach. My guess is that the improvement would be almost immediate.

NightTrainLayne
10-23-2010, 01:19 PM
Come on NTL, thats crap and you are better than this. Thats not what I'm saying and you know it. Don't pull a rc.

McD took over an offense that was considered on of the best and youngest in the NFL with the best OL in the league. It was already an 8-8 team. The Chiefs had only won 6 games, total, the two season's prior to Haley even arriving. Don't try to make this an "anti-McD" observation, either. I've made it VERY VER clear that I absolutely DO NOT like Haley, at all.

If you guys can't see... or at least admit.... that the Chiefs have made bigger strides this year than we have, then there's nothing more that can be said. But don't pull that kind of lame junk.

Well we'll see whose made bigger strides this year over last year at the end of the seaon.

I'll try and remember this at the end of the season. So far, the six weeks of football I've seen do not have me anywhere near convinced that the Chiefs have made more strides than us. Both teams have made strides, but I don't see them improving more than us. We get a few more guys back healthy, and we're a much stronger team than KC.

Some folks think it's making excuses to talk about injuries, but those same folks cry about McD sending their favorite players somewhere because talent is important, and yet turn around and don't take into account that some of our very talented players in some key positions are out with injuries.

Sure McD shipped some guys out, but you can't argue that he didn't plan and replace them with capable replacements. When someone gets hurt during the season, that isn't much of a possibility.

Ravage!!!
10-23-2010, 01:34 PM
Well we'll see whose made bigger strides this year over last year at the end of the seaon.

I'll try and remember this at the end of the season. So far, the six weeks of football I've seen do not have me anywhere near convinced that the Chiefs have made more strides than us. Both teams have made strides, but I don't see them improving more than us. We get a few more guys back healthy, and we're a much stronger team than KC.

Some folks think it's making excuses to talk about injuries, but those same folks cry about McD sending their favorite players somewhere because talent is important, and yet turn around and don't take into account that some of our very talented players in some key positions are out with injuries.

Sure McD shipped some guys out, but you can't argue that he didn't plan and replace them with capable replacements. When someone gets hurt during the season, that isn't much of a possibility.

Alright. Well, just because a team has made more strides and/or improvements, doesn't necessarily equate to being a better overall team, this year.

Also, (since you wanted to go there)...... the people that talk about how TALENT is important for a team are the same ones that see that shipped out talent leaves a hole that HAS to be replaced rather than spending the picks on positions of need to build AROUND the already had talent. Depth is also something that is gained when you don't have to try and continue to replace talent that you already had.

So yeah.... I think the talk of injuries doesn't hold much water considering injuries happen throughout the NFL.

spikerman
10-23-2010, 01:35 PM
IMO it's pretty clear that the Chiefs have made a bigger one year improvement than the Broncos. If for no other reason because they had farther to go. I was at the Chiefs' game against the Texans and I'm here to tell you that they are a pretty good overall team. I think they have a bright future and are on the right path.

Ravage!!!
10-23-2010, 01:46 PM
IMO it's pretty clear that the Chiefs have made a bigger one year improvement than the Broncos. If for no other reason because they had farther to go. I was at the Chiefs' game against the Texans and I'm here to tell you that they are a pretty good overall team. I think they have a bright future and are on the right path.

Thats basically what it comes down to. If a team has only won 4 games the last few years, improving to 8 wins is a HUGE improvement in one season.

Now... I don't consider a one game difference to be a "better" or "worse" situation. To me, if we finished 7-9, thats not really different than 8-8 (except one can be said to have a "losing" season by technicality)... 9-7 is no different, either. Can't say a team got better nor worse based on one game. We've seen how one bounce of the ball, or one tipped pass, can make that single difference.

I say that because if we go 7-9 this season, I won't view that any different than going 9-7. Thats just a single game difference from last season.

But the Chiefs were absolutely in position to beat the Colts, and in position to beat the Texans. If some of us want to say that we have improved because we were in the game with the Jets, well we have to give the same credit to the Chiefs.

NightTrainLayne
10-23-2010, 01:54 PM
Alright. Well, just because a team has made more strides and/or improvements, doesn't necessarily equate to being a better overall team, this year.

Also, (since you wanted to go there)...... the people that talk about how TALENT is important for a team are the same ones that see that shipped out talent leaves a hole that HAS to be replaced rather than spending the picks on positions of need to build AROUND the already had talent. Depth is also something that is gained when you don't have to try and continue to replace talent that you already had.

So yeah.... I think the talk of injuries doesn't hold much water considering injuries happen throughout the NFL.

Sure injuries happen throughout the NFL. But can we agree that we have had a worse than average experience with injuries this season?

Ravage!!!
10-23-2010, 02:20 PM
Sure injuries happen throughout the NFL. But can we agree that we have had a worse than average experience with injuries this season?

Its been bad, NTL... but we were down to our 7th RB just a couple years back.

I guess I'm just not one to use injuries as a reason for failure. I honestly understand that people see it, and HOPE that next year will be different if/when those players are back and healthy. But then next year, we'll probably have more injuries. I just feel that we have to accept them as part of the game and judge our season based on whats on the field, and not whats on IR.

Now maybe next offseason, I can start to wonder how the 2011 season might be different with Doom in the lineup.

BroncoWave
10-23-2010, 02:26 PM
Its been bad, NTL... but we were down to our 7th RB just a couple years back.

I guess I'm just not one to use injuries as a reason for failure. I honestly understand that people see it, and HOPE that next year will be different if/when those players are back and healthy. But then next year, we'll probably have more injuries. I just feel that we have to accept them as part of the game and judge our season based on whats on the field, and not whats on IR.

Now maybe next offseason, I can start to wonder how the 2011 season might be different with Doom in the lineup.

That's one position though. I'd rather have to play my 7th stringer at one position than my second stringers at 7 positions.

Northman
10-23-2010, 02:31 PM
That's one position though. I'd rather have to play my 7th stringer at one position than my second stringers at 7 positions.

Not me, i would rather have quality depth guys as my 2nd stringers than having to hire a guy who was working in a Kiosk.

BroncoWave
10-23-2010, 02:38 PM
Not me, i would rather have quality depth guys as my 2nd stringers than having to hire a guy who was working in a Kiosk.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then. Although that guy who worked at a kiosk actually played pretty well when called upon. I kinda wish we still had him right now. He couldn't be any worse than Maroney or Buck have been this year.

claymore
10-23-2010, 02:53 PM
Our injuries have been exageratred. We are a pretty healthy team.

BroncoWave
10-23-2010, 02:59 PM
Our injuries have been exageratred. We are a pretty healthy team.

That's not even a little true. Neither of our starting OTs have fully recovered from their injuries, our RB's have been gimpy all year, we are without our best defensive player for the season, our other top pass rusher is hurt, our #2 CB has been out for several weeks, and now our 2 best DBs are banged up.

That's over 1/3 of our starters who have had injury problems this season.

You can argue that injuries shouldn't be an excuse but I don't see how you can say we have been a healthy team.

Northman
10-23-2010, 03:01 PM
Wow, Newton got hit straight up and STILL got the TD. lmao

Lonestar
10-23-2010, 03:07 PM
Not me, i would rather have quality depth guys as my 2nd stringers than having to hire a guy who was working in a Kiosk.

Just curious did we ever have 7 2nd stringers that could step into a position and play as well.

Frankly most NFL teams have 3 maybe 4 extra oline guys, to cover almost all the spots on the team. 2 @ QB, 3 total TEs, 5-6 wrs..

1 spare guy for each DL spot 3 spare CB and 2 spare safeties.

IIRC we have 6 starters on D and 3 on O that are not healthy. and a couple more on O that are not at 100%.

That said after replacing a lot of folks in two drafts how are you going to be 2 deep at each spot like you seem to be implying.

spikerman
10-23-2010, 03:10 PM
That said after replacing a lot of folks in two drafts how are you going to be 2 deep at each spot like you seem to be implying.

I don't want to turn this back into the same ol' argument so I'll just say that the need to replace a lot of those folks was due to decisions made by the coach for whatever reason. ** Because of that, I don't think the coach can get a pass for not having enough quality replacements.

** Just to be clear, I'm not saying all of the personnel decisions were due to something the coach did wrong, only that whether a guy is still on the roster or not is ultimately his decision.

claymore
10-23-2010, 03:11 PM
That's not even a little true. Neither of our starting OTs have fully recovered from their injuries, our RB's have been gimpy all year, we are without our best defensive player for the season, our other top pass rusher is hurt, our #2 CB has been out for several weeks, and now our 2 best DBs are banged up.

That's over 1/3 of our starters who have had injury problems this season.

You can argue that injuries shouldn't be an excuse but I don't see how you can say we have been a healthy team.

Neither one of our Tackles are on the injury report. Nor were they last week or the week before.

Doom is a loss, but we knew about that since training camp.

Ayers has 1.5 sacks, and 14 tackles in 5 games.

Bailey will probably play.

Dawkins is at the age where we all know he cant make it thru a whole season. This shouldnt have been a surprise.

I think our hurt players are pretty mediocre. I dont think they will be missed that much. (No offense to Dawkins who used to be great).

Lonestar
10-23-2010, 03:11 PM
That's not even a little true. Neither of our starting OTs have fully recovered from their injuries, our RB's have been gimpy all year, we are without our best defensive player for the season, our other top pass rusher is hurt, our #2 CB has been out for several weeks, and now our 2 best DBs are banged up.

That's over 1/3 of our starters who have had injury problems this season.

You can argue that injuries shouldn't be an excuse but I don't see how you can say we have been a healthy team.

We have been injury ridden all year.

I heard Josh say that they could not practice the running plays effectively in TC and preseason because they did not ever have the starters available to practice. Clady did not practice till week 4 of preseason Moreno never did Harris was walking wounded. Kuper not much better and we had two rookies in the rest of the spots. The RB we were working out are on IR.

I'm really not sure what our fans are realistically expecting.

Northman
10-23-2010, 03:13 PM
That said after replacing a lot of folks in two drafts how are you going to be 2 deep at each spot like you seem to be implying.

Who says you have to be 2 deep? Even if you have just 1 is good depth. Secondly, making wiser choices when taking in FA's helps out tremendously. Also keep in mind that the reason the replacing took place is because the HC wanted to do it. In some cases it was needed, in others it wasnt but it still falls on his shoulders to make sure he gets the quality of players he is trying to replace.

Lonestar
10-23-2010, 03:14 PM
I don't want to turn this back into the same ol' argument so I'll just say that the need to replace a lot of those folks was due to decisions made by the coach for whatever reason. ** Because of that, I don't think the coach can get a pass for not having enough quality replacements.

** Just to be clear, I'm not saying all of the personnel decisions were due to something the coach did wrong, only that whether a guy is still on the roster or not is ultimately his decision.

Lets talk about this players who are they.

BroncoWave
10-23-2010, 03:16 PM
Who says you have to be 2 deep? Even if you have just 1 is good depth. Secondly, making wiser choices when taking in FA's helps out tremendously. Also keep in mind that the reason the replacing took place is because the HC wanted to do it. In some cases it was needed, in others it wasnt but it still falls on his shoulders to make sure he gets the quality of players he is trying to replace.

2 deep means starters+backups.

Northman
10-23-2010, 03:21 PM
2 deep means starters+backups.

My bad, i thought he was talking about 2 backups.

spikerman
10-23-2010, 03:24 PM
Lets talk about this players who are they.

Nope, not the point of this thread and enough threads have been derailed by the same ol' arguments.

Ravage!!!
10-23-2010, 03:34 PM
Lets talk about this players who are they.

QB, WR, TE, CB, and TE

We used a first round pick (and many picks to get that first round pick) on a QB in order to replace the QB we had. Now we not only don't need him, but used SEVERAL picks in one of the deepest drafts in history to get him. Picks that would look REALLY good for depth about now.

WR. We used a first round pick for a WR that we picked because (as McD stated) "he reminded me of Marshal" .. the very WR we traded away.

TE. Traded away a pass-catching TE, then turned around and traded for the pass-catching TE that was going to be cut from teh very team we traded ours too... and he was going to be cut because he wasn't good enough to compete with the one we just traded away.

CB. We moved UP and used a high first round pick on a CB, that was then traded away the next year. Before anyone says "yeah, but we got cox later, so it doesn't matter." It DOES matter in a thread that is talking about depth. Instead of having Williams AND Cox.....

TE. We moved UP to get a blocking TE that can't get on the field. Now we not only don't have the blocking TE, but we don't have the player we MIGHT have picked with the one we moved up with. Not to mention, the pick we used to trade for the TE in detroit.

Many of these moves simply keep us going in circles. Moving a player away simply to turn around and get another of the same player....or... one that doesn't even make the team... thus not providing the depth that we are lacking right now.



**But Spike had the right Idea and I wish I would have read his thread before posting this one. Not the thread topic, and its been hashed over time and time again.

Bosco
10-23-2010, 05:39 PM
QB, WR, TE, CB, and TE

We used a first round pick (and many picks to get that first round pick) on a QB in order to replace the QB we had. Now we not only don't need him, but used SEVERAL picks in one of the deepest drafts in history to get him. Picks that would look REALLY good for depth about now. Those picks we traded away were by products of moving back to select both Thomas and Tebow. We effectively turned an early 1st rounder into two later first rounders with no net loss. That was simply masterful work on McDaniels' part.

atwater27
10-23-2010, 05:56 PM
Those picks we traded away were by products of moving back to select both Thomas and Tebow. We effectively turned an early 1st rounder into two later first rounders with no net loss. That was simply masterful work on McDaniels' part.

I see absolutely nothing masterful in anything Josh has done. The picture you are painting of McDaniels is made of fingerpaint.

BroncoWave
10-23-2010, 05:59 PM
Those picks we traded away were by products of moving back to select both Thomas and Tebow. We effectively turned an early 1st rounder into two later first rounders with no net loss. That was simply masterful work on McDaniels' part.

Those who already have their heels dug in against McD will never concede this point. You're 100% right but the "we wasted 4 draft picks on Tebow" BS will never go away.

atwater27
10-23-2010, 06:04 PM
Those who already have their heels dug in against McD will never concede this point. You're 100% right but the "we wasted 4 draft picks on Tebow" BS will never go away.

We shouldn't have even picked the guy in the 1st round anyways. It was a horrible pick at that point in the draft. It defied our team needs as well as draft value.

Gimpygod
10-23-2010, 06:17 PM
We have been injury ridden all year.

I heard Josh say that they could not practice the running plays effectively in TC and preseason because they did not ever have the starters available to practice. Clady did not practice till week 4 of preseason Moreno never did Harris was walking wounded. Kuper not much better and we had two rookies in the rest of the spots. The RB we were working out are on IR.

I'm really not sure what our fans are realistically expecting.

where was all this understanding and reason you show in 08-07?

atwater27
10-23-2010, 06:28 PM
where was all this understanding and reason you show in 08-07?

I think we have a case of 'selective understanding'

NightTrainLayne
10-23-2010, 06:57 PM
You guys have made your point as it applies to JR.

Jr, however, is not the topic here.

I was and still am a huge Shanny fan. I can remember making similar arguments about injuries and giving time for a group of new players to work together in a scheme for a few years. Give time for the systems to become part of the culture of the players.

I'm a fan of Cutler. I had a signature here with him in it until sometime in during the pre-season last year, and a pic of him graced my cell phone as a wallpaper.

I have no ulterior motive for being patient with McD, and neither do a lot of posters around here. I liked and defended Shanny, and I like and defend McD.

Dogfish has made the best post in the thread so far. There's simply no evidence that anyone else could have or would be able to get us to a SuperBowl level any quicker, and odds are actually, that switching again only delays the opportunity to get to that level.

Being a Head Coach in the NFL is about setting up systems, and then filling your coaching staff, and roster with people that can implement and execute those systems successfully.

Sometimes you can have the right systems in place, but maybe not the right people, or vice versa. Sometimes you can maybe get both together, but key injuries mask the potential for success. Sometimes you screw up both areas and don't ever have success.

I happen to like the systems that McD has put in place. I like his overall plan. It hasn't been able to bear fruit yet, but I am fairly confident that it will. I see a lot of good things happening, and a lot of positive growth from last season.

I'm a poker player. I play poker on a daily basis, both on the internet and live in a Casino. Everyone whose ever watched a hand of Hold-em on ESPN knows that AA is the best starting hand, and that you raise with it to start, and you also fold 7-2 off-suit whenever you see it.

I know the mathematics and preferred strategy inside and out. I have a system for playing that is very successful for me. I trust that system and know that if I am patient, and disciplined to follow it that it will be profitable.

Does that guarantee I win every hand? No. Does it guarantee I even win every session? Every week? No.

But over the long run, I know and trust it's the right way to do it, and over the long run, I've been very successful with it.

Same thing in my business. I have several systems I utilize in my office. Does it guarantee huge success every day? No, but over time I know that these are the best ways to "win".

I see the same things in McD. And one thing that I really respect, is he is patient and disciplined in running his system. Over time I think we'll be the beneficiaries of that patience and discipline.

Northman
10-23-2010, 07:12 PM
Being a Head Coach in the NFL is about setting up systems, and then filling your coaching staff, and roster with people that can implement and execute those systems successfully.

.

It doesnt always take totally ripping down the current rosters in order to achieve that though. Ive seen coaches come in and work just fine with the talent and rosters they had in place. A couple of them even made it too the Super Bowl so its not "definitive" that it cant happen if you stay with current rosters. The Broncos were a .500 team really on the verge of going over the hump. Many of dont think it was necessary to rip the core of the team down (especially on offense) and start over. All this on the words of the Owner who never once mentioned we were rebuilding so yes, we expect results sooner rather than later.

claymore
10-23-2010, 07:25 PM
You guys have made your point as it applies to JR.

Jr, however, is not the topic here.

I was and still am a huge Shanny fan. I can remember making similar arguments about injuries and giving time for a group of new players to work together in a scheme for a few years. Give time for the systems to become part of the culture of the players.

I'm a fan of Cutler. I had a signature here with him in it until sometime in during the pre-season last year, and a pic of him graced my cell phone as a wallpaper.

I have no ulterior motive for being patient with McD, and neither do a lot of posters around here. I liked and defended Shanny, and I like and defend McD.

Dogfish has made the best post in the thread so far. There's simply no evidence that anyone else could have or would be able to get us to a SuperBowl level any quicker, and odds are actually, that switching again only delays the opportunity to get to that level.

Being a Head Coach in the NFL is about setting up systems, and then filling your coaching staff, and roster with people that can implement and execute those systems successfully.

Sometimes you can have the right systems in place, but maybe not the right people, or vice versa. Sometimes you can maybe get both together, but key injuries mask the potential for success. Sometimes you screw up both areas and don't ever have success.

I happen to like the systems that McD has put in place. I like his overall plan. It hasn't been able to bear fruit yet, but I am fairly confident that it will. I see a lot of good things happening, and a lot of positive growth from last season.

I'm a poker player. I play poker on a daily basis, both on the internet and live in a Casino. Everyone whose ever watched a hand of Hold-em on ESPN knows that AA is the best starting hand, and that you raise with it to start, and you also fold 7-2 off-suit whenever you see it.

I know the mathematics and preferred strategy inside and out. I have a system for playing that is very successful for me. I trust that system and know that if I am patient, and disciplined to follow it that it will be profitable.

Does that guarantee I win every hand? No. Does it guarantee I even win every session? Every week? No.

But over the long run, I know and trust it's the right way to do it, and over the long run, I've been very successful with it.

Same thing in my business. I have several systems I utilize in my office. Does it guarantee huge success every day? No, but over time I know that these are the best ways to "win".

I see the same things in McD. And one thing that I really respect, is he is patient and disciplined in running his system. Over time I think we'll be the beneficiaries of that patience and discipline.
I respect your opinion alot NTL, and I wish I felt more like you. Or I wish I was as patient as you...

IMO, it feels like McD has no real direction. He makes split second decisions based off of what ever thing he has a hard on for at that moment.

He hasnt stuck to anything. There is nothing solid on this team other than WR depth that cant score points.

I understand the supposed plan, but I think McD is to immature, or impatient to actually stick to it.

If Cowher is available next year and we are below .500 this year Bowlen would be a moron to stick with this negative investment in McD.

JMO...

pnbronco
10-23-2010, 07:37 PM
NTL that was a great post. I agree with you on so many points and with Dog that changing things again will not get us any further along, in fact I think it will take us back 2 years to be honest.

On another thread DJ said he was so happy to have a coach use him the way he works best. I have seen a lot of D being happy with their D coach. Wink being in the system seems to understand their strengths instead of starting from scratch like they have in the past.

I loved Shanny and will always be so grateful for everything he brought to Denver. I also have a lot of respect for Coach McD. He's made some mistakes, but the day I stop making them then that's the day I will feel like I can judge him on that.

I see progress given that we've had a tough schedule again for the second year in a row and the unbelievable injuries. Also for the record, when we went through RB after RB that year I was willing to burn sage around Dove and told coach Shanny I would do that if he thought it would help, at least he smiled. That was just a crazy year too.

I went to camp a lot and go to as many games as I can given my travel schedule. I don't see tension or conflict with the players and Coach. Oh there's yelling but that's who he is and the players know that, no walks away like he just killed their puppy. In fact I see a lot of respect from the top on down. In fact talking to some of the guys that provide team support there just seems to be just a lot of respect in general.

I also agree with you NTL, I have a system that works for my business. I can't control the economy or the mood people are in, but I can do my part. This fall it's paid off and will work it even more as I'm learning what works and what doesn't. Everyone once in awhile I laugh when I get down, I'll tell myself "Just do your job". So I get back to work.

What I'm looking for is can we win the games we are suppose to. I hope they can turn it around starting tomorrow. I can only hope that the O line gels, the RB's get into a groove and stay healthy and the D heals up too.

BroncoWave
10-23-2010, 07:43 PM
It doesnt always take totally ripping down the current rosters in order to achieve that though. Ive seen coaches come in and work just fine with the talent and rosters they had in place. A couple of them even made it too the Super Bowl so its not "definitive" that it cant happen if you stay with current rosters. The Broncos were a .500 team really on the verge of going over the hump. Many of dont think it was necessary to rip the core of the team down (especially on offense) and start over. All this on the words of the Owner who never once mentioned we were rebuilding so yes, we expect results sooner rather than later.

:deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse:

Gimpygod
10-23-2010, 07:48 PM
You guys have made your point as it applies to JR.

Jr, however, is not the topic here.

I was and still am a huge Shanny fan. I can remember making similar arguments about injuries and giving time for a group of new players to work together in a scheme for a few years. Give time for the systems to become part of the culture of the players.

I'm a fan of Cutler. I had a signature here with him in it until sometime in during the pre-season last year, and a pic of him graced my cell phone as a wallpaper.

I have no ulterior motive for being patient with McD, and neither do a lot of posters around here. I liked and defended Shanny, and I like and defend McD.

Dogfish has made the best post in the thread so far. There's simply no evidence that anyone else could have or would be able to get us to a SuperBowl level any quicker, and odds are actually, that switching again only delays the opportunity to get to that level.

Being a Head Coach in the NFL is about setting up systems, and then filling your coaching staff, and roster with people that can implement and execute those systems successfully.

Sometimes you can have the right systems in place, but maybe not the right people, or vice versa. Sometimes you can maybe get both together, but key injuries mask the potential for success. Sometimes you screw up both areas and don't ever have success.

I happen to like the systems that McD has put in place. I like his overall plan. It hasn't been able to bear fruit yet, but I am fairly confident that it will. I see a lot of good things happening, and a lot of positive growth from last season.

I'm a poker player. I play poker on a daily basis, both on the internet and live in a Casino. Everyone whose ever watched a hand of Hold-em on ESPN knows that AA is the best starting hand, and that you raise with it to start, and you also fold 7-2 off-suit whenever you see it.

I know the mathematics and preferred strategy inside and out. I have a system for playing that is very successful for me. I trust that system and know that if I am patient, and disciplined to follow it that it will be profitable.

Does that guarantee I win every hand? No. Does it guarantee I even win every session? Every week? No.

But over the long run, I know and trust it's the right way to do it, and over the long run, I've been very successful with it.

Same thing in my business. I have several systems I utilize in my office. Does it guarantee huge success every day? No, but over time I know that these are the best ways to "win".

I see the same things in McD. And one thing that I really respect, is he is patient and disciplined in running his system. Over time I think we'll be the beneficiaries of that patience and discipline.

nope, analogy doesn't fit. You don't muck bullets because ya have a beef with the dealer...McDaniels threw away a made hand. Also you and dog are logically consistent so no problems there. side note: Im on fulltilt as well as pokerstars and variance is eating my shorts...advice please!

Northman
10-23-2010, 07:58 PM
NTL that was a great post. I agree with you on so many points and with Dog that changing things again will not get us any further along, in fact I think it will take us back 2 years to be honest.

We were on the right track 2 years ago and now the last two years have set us back.


On another thread DJ said he was so happy to have a coach use him the way he works best. I have seen a lot of D being happy with their D coach. Wink being in the system seems to understand their strengths instead of starting from scratch like they have in the past.

Im happy that DJ is happy but the defense is worse than it was last year and thats all im concerned with. The fact that Wink has them singing around a campfire means very little to me. I need to see improvement and its not there.


I loved Shanny and will always be so grateful for everything he brought to Denver. I also have a lot of respect for Coach McD. He's made some mistakes, but the day I stop making them then that's the day I will feel like I can judge him on that.

Judgement and criticism comes with the territory regardless of who the coach is. Guys like Shanahan spent years dealing with that.


I went to camp a lot and go to as many games as I can given my travel schedule. I don't see tension or conflict with the players and Coach. Oh there's yelling but that's who he is and the players know that, no walks away like he just killed their puppy. In fact I see a lot of respect from the top on down. In fact talking to some of the guys that provide team support there just seems to be just a lot of respect in general.

Are you insinuating that the players never respected Shanahan? I find that too be a stretch.


What I'm looking for is can we win the games we are suppose to. I hope they can turn it around starting tomorrow. I can only hope that the O line gels, the RB's get into a groove and stay healthy and the D heals up too.

I agree, this week we need to start by winning games we are supposed to win. Last year that didnt work so now is as good time as any for McD to start showing his worth as HC.

Dzone
10-23-2010, 08:00 PM
There are second year coaches who inherited far worse teams than the one handed to Mcdaniels. Now those second year coaches are winning. Not saying its that black and white, just sayin. He should do better than last year. He needs to lessen his egregious coaching blunders during games.

Dzone
10-23-2010, 08:19 PM
Looking at the situation in Dallas with Wade Phillips. That is what happens when you keep the wrong coach. Makes ya wonder what is going through owners minds. Anyone and everyone knows wade Phillips is a good assistant coach and a TERRIBLE head coach,, yet the owner keeps him. If the record is worse than last year, then mcdaniels is not the right man for the job. In this age of quick turn arounds. Its not like the old days when a team might take 3-4 years to start winning. Roster changes happen now faster than ever before. Teams go from the outhouse to the penthouse in one year. He inherited a good team and then changed everything to suit his style. He had better win this year.

dogfish
10-23-2010, 08:50 PM
okay, i wanted to get back to this, but didn't have time before. . . bear with me a bit, i just came back from the bar. . . :drinking::D


We don't know if DT is as talented in the LEAST yet. He hasn't done anything. He certainly hasn't produced on a consistent level, at all... yet. As we've seen from every position throughout the NFL... simply saying a guy has more "athletic ability"... doesn't mean squat.

sounds like you're confusing "talent" with "production". . . saying that he hasn't done anything is saying he hasn't produced, on the field. . . talent is raw, natural ability. . . skill is acquired ability-- running routes, techniques to get separation, reading coverage, etc. . . production is the numbers you put up-- the yards, first downs and touchdowns you produce. . .

you can nitpick whether he's AS talented as marshall, but it's very clear that the kid has rare, blue chip physical ability. . . the unfortunate fact that he wasn't able to attend the combine may obfuscate the fact just a bit, but i think you have an idea what you're looking at-- use your eyes! GT coaches reportedly clocked him in the 4.3's in the 40 in pre-combine workouts. . . even if you shave a tenth for publicity it's still a 4.4, and he most certainly looks every bit of that with the pads on. . . you really don't think he looks faster than brandon? his size is very comparable at 6'3 230, and one look (http://yfrog.com/2tdemaryiusthomasj) at the dude shows you he's no stranger to the weight room. . . we don't have triangle numbers or vertical leap to compare, but i went to TC one day, and saw him freaking SKY to catch a pass over champ bailey, right along the sideline 5-6 feet away from us-- i promise you he has those jump out of the gym hops. . . :D

the body control to make some of the impressive adjustments marshall made to the ball? we'll see. . . but just from limited action it's clear that DT is no slouch. . . before we had him for a visit, i would have told you i thought he was easily the highest upside receiver in this draft class. . . i remember reading in PFW that some people in the georgia tech program felt that thomas was just a shade below calvin johnson in overall ability. . .

i'm not at all saying that he's going to be the same type of impact player that marshall has proven
himself to be (although i like the odds). . . but just in terms of raw, physical ability, i don't know where you're seeing thomas fall short of brandon. . . DT still has to prove that he can be a great football player at this level, but i'd say it's already been proven pretty conclusively that he has a ton of talent. . .



We certainly haven't replaced his "production"... because no one has been able to explain to me how having him on the team makes guys like Lloyed WORSE instead of better?

i never said a word about him making lloyd worse-- that frankly sounds like some type of gibberish, and i'm not a bit interested in going off on some wild tangent. . . production is production-- impact on other players would fall under intangibles, team roles, something like that. . . it's not quantifiable-- production is inherently quantifiable. . .

lloyd has replaced marshall's production-- that seems like an exceptionally simple equation. . . gaffney and royal are still the second and third receivers, so lloyd's numbers slot in neatly for marshall's. . .

last year, through six games marshall had 332 yards and 4 TDs-- lloyd at the same point has 663 yards and 3 TDs. . . obviously no comparison, but before you accuse me of being disingenuous because marshall started slow, let's project. . . lloyd's on pace for over 1,700 yards and about 8 TDs. . . granted, i absolutely can't see him actually hitting that mind-boggling yardage total, for any number of reasons. . . but he clearly shouldn't have much problem eclipsing marshall's 1,110 yards from last year, even if he doesn't equal brandon's 10 TDs. . .


Do we really believe that a guy like AP rushing for 1400 yrds for a team is the same as 3 different RBs rushing for 450? Total yards production isn't the same thing....imo.

in regards to RBs i completely agree with you, but i just don't see it as much with receivers-- to some degree, certainly, but in today's NFL, where defensive backs have been reduced to playing pattycake, i don't think it matters AS much. . . we're seeing plenty of smaller, and older/slower receivers getting it done. . . it's not ****ing hard when you're granted impunity to run your routes anywhere on the field and the defenders can't touch or try to stop you. . . [/massivescorn] sure, ideally you'd still rather have a guy with that inherent gamebreaking ability-- no question. . .

but the marshall situation was volatile before mcdaniels even got here, unlike the other guys. . . i'd say he actually handled it pretty damn well compared to san diego's handling of vincent jackson, wouldn't you? sure, we had to spend a pick to replace BM, but we also got two back-- one of which we haven't spent yet. . .

in the meantime, i think you have to be a bit reasonable and accept that we have to replace his talent and his production with two different guys until thomas can get up to speed. . . and if you can see what marshall would be doing to help us win more games than what we're currently getting from our passing game, point it out to me. . .

pnbronco
10-23-2010, 09:24 PM
Are you insinuating that the players never respected Shanahan? I find that too be a stretch.



Not at all. In fact I've never said anything bad about Shanny. In fact I stated earlier that I so appreciate what Shanny did for the team. The players respected Shanny but the also respect Coach McD.

During camp when the players would be warming up Coach McD would walk around and talk to a different group of players every day. I remember one day one of songs had a lot of rhythm and Brandon Lloyd was trying to show Coach McD some moves, they both ended up laughing. He's different that Coach Shanny, but I don't have to pick one over the other.

atwater27
10-23-2010, 09:39 PM
It doesnt always take totally ripping down the current rosters in order to achieve that though.

Oh man, the truth hurts so much, doesn't it?

atwater27
10-23-2010, 09:49 PM
:deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse:

Definition of beating a dead horse:beat / floga dead horse, to persist in pursuing or trying to revive interest in a project or subject that has lost its usefulness or relevance. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/beat+a+dead+horse


The fact that McDaniels blew up an offensive unit for no reason other than to bring in his own guys at the expense of defensive personell does not fit into the dead horse argument; simply because we are seeing the results, or more importantly, lack of results as a TEAM from those actions. It is as relevant as a heart attack if you are a Broncos fan.

Those actions caused and is still causing us to spin our wheels. It was a waste of time, draft value, free agent dollars and potential wins as well as overall team potential.

Josh McDaniels ****** UP badly with his decision to throw away a perfectly good, young promising offense. Simply keping most of the offense intact while focusing on the defense and ST would have been the smartest and most productive course a new HC could have taken. How you guys cannot see that I have no idea, other than a blind allegiance to a coach that has given you nothing in return.

Lonestar
10-24-2010, 12:17 AM
It doesnt always take totally ripping down the current rosters in order to achieve that though. Ive seen coaches come in and work just fine with the talent and rosters they had in place. A couple of them even made it too the Super Bowl so its not "definitive" that it cant happen if you stay with current rosters. The Broncos were a .500 team really on the verge of going over the hump. Many of dont think it was necessary to rip the core of the team down (especially on offense) and start over. All this on the words of the Owner who never once mentioned we were rebuilding so yes, we expect results sooner rather than later.

Yes there have been changes in HC that did not necessitate lots of players leaving.

But that is not the case here.

Pat did not hire him for status quo in playbooks.

He hired him to bring in the Spread PBS. Scheme as well as the 3-4.

We all know that to be fact or he would not been hired.

He was not brought in to keep mikes playbook or staff.

Real simple. Yet no one wants to understand it.

Pat wants the winning traditions of NE.

Or he would have hired spagnola. Or morris.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Canmore
10-24-2010, 12:56 AM
Yes there have been changes in HC that did not necessitate lots of players leaving.

But that is not the case here.

Pat did not hire him for status quo in playbooks.

He hired him to bring in the Spread PBS. Scheme as well as the 3-4.

We all know that to be fact or he would not been hired.

He was not brought in to keep mikes playbook or staff.

Real simple. Yet no one wants to understand it.

Pat wants the winning traditions of NE.

Or he would have hired spagnola. Or morris.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Why are you so sure of this? I have never brought up the C word in a post, but why wouldn't C have thrived in this offense. I agree Marshall had to go, but why the C drama and end result?

Lonestar
10-24-2010, 12:57 AM
where was all this understanding and reason you show in 08-07?

After 14 years the last ten being a slippery slope with zero hope of getting better just more lousy D and lousy red zone play. It was past time to make a change.

Now when Josh has been here ten years and there is no improvment then I jump over to the Josh has to go side.
Till then stop whining and support the guy
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Bosco
10-24-2010, 02:25 AM
Why are you so sure of this? I have never brought up the C word in a post, but why wouldn't C have thrived in this offense. The only thing that would have prevented him from succeeding in this offense is his gunslinger mentality, which he seemingly has no interest in changing.

Canmore
10-24-2010, 02:37 AM
The only thing that would have prevented him from succeeding in this offense is his gunslinger mentality, which he seemingly has no interest in changing.

But is it a prerequisite not to have a gunslingers mentality to thrive in this offense, or is it just Cutler.

Canmore
10-24-2010, 04:37 AM
... I think this year's a mulligan, frankly, which will be especially regrettable if there's no 2011 season.
I don't think this year is a mulligan, even though I feel McD will be back whenever there is football again (I pray it is next year). Year three will be the make or break year no matter who he starts at QB.

Joel
10-24-2010, 04:39 AM
The fact that McDaniels blew up an offensive unit for no reason other than to bring in his own guys at the expense of defensive personell does not fit into the dead horse argument; simply because we are seeing the results, or more importantly, lack of results as a TEAM from those actions. It is as relevant as a heart attack if you are a Broncos fan.
That's always been my complaint and concern: That offense was GOOD, it just had no D (and trouble finishing in the red zone, but after two 4th and G failures a few weeks ago I'd say that problem endures). Dumping proven offensive talent implied McDaniels didn't know how to use it, and blaming each late season loss on the Marshall, then the line, then Marshall and Scheff only deepened that impression.

It's still too soon to tell though, IMHO; McDaniels is only in the second year of what I consider the four year MINIMUM a coach deserves to turn his predecessors team into his own. We can't cherry pick the good or bad things McDaniels has accomlished: The offense has gotten worse, but the defense is much improved, and that's something with which Shanny visibly struggled for quite some time (seems to be struggling with it a bit in DC, too). You can't have one without the other, and in the modern NFL, obsessed with short quick passes to a half dozen receivers, we needed to be in a 3-4. Shanny wouldn't do it because he knew it meant a complete tear defensive tear down and he thought he was only one or two players from a Championship; McDaniels bit the bullet, took his lumps and did what had to be done. Without McDaniels the offense would probably be much better, the D would probably be much worse and we'd probably still be a .500 team.

On another thread DJ said he was so happy to have a coach use him the way he works best. I have seen a lot of D being happy with their D coach. Wink being in the system seems to understand their strengths instead of starting from scratch like they have in the past.
IMHO, that's REALLY the head coachs job. Give me the 2009 NFL Pro Bowl team and I could probably whip any team in the League, and the system probably wouldn't matter much. HoFers excel at most or all aspects of the game; that's what makes them HoFers. However, since most teams can't afford a roster of HoFers, that means the head coach has to take a look at what he's got and what he can get and then find a way to translate that into a Championship.

Doing that is what separates the men from the boys among head coaches, and I think it's harder to do in the NFL than anywhere. How common are repeat Championships? Better question: How many threepeats have there been, and how many coaches have won SBs with two different teams? (Answer: None, and none). I'm not sure how well most head coaches grasp all this either; how many times have you seen a previously successful (either as coordinator or head coach) take over a new team and fall on his face because he tries to keep playing the same style of game with a team built for something completely different?

If a coach only knows how to win one or two ways he's not a very good head coach, IMHO, but it's one reason why it takes most new coaches several years to get to the playoffs. It's the thing that made me so nervous when McDaniels started liquidating Pro Bowlers left and right: That implies he doesn't know how to use a number of very talented players, and that makes me worry, because if he's waiting for a chance to pick 22 Elways #12 in the draft, he'll wait a loooong time.

The flip side, however, is the DJ quote here, and it's just as easy to say Cutler got dumped because he only knows one way to play QB (Bears fans would probably agree). If McDaniels is going after guys who do many things well and then trying to build an offense and defense out of them, well, however we feel about him right now, those are the teams that bring home Lombardi Trophies and feel it less when 31 teams pick over their free agents in the offseason.

Meanwhile, as I said in the other thread, with the reigning NFL Sack King out for the season, a rookie starting at CB and so many other starters out for weeks, if not months, I don't think anyone can blame McDaniels if we under perform this season. Whether you feel good, bad or indifferent about him and his coaching, he's doing it with one hand tied behind him right now, so we can't reasonably expect much. I'm not impressed with the offense, and haven't been for some time, but that's only a third of the game, and he had some holes not of his own making to fill there, too. I think this year's a mulligan, frankly, which will be especially regrettable if there's no 2011 season.

Joel
10-24-2010, 04:48 AM
I don't think this year is a mulligan, even though I feel McD will be back whenever there is football again (I pray it is next year). Year three will be the make or break year no matter who he starts at QB.
It usually works out that way, but I think a lot of fans and media markets screw themselves by taking that attitude and pressuring owners into making those kinds of decisions. My rule of thumb is:

5 years for a head coach,
4 years for a coordinator and
3 years for a position coach

Practically, however, you have to cut a year off each of those in the pressure cooker world of the NFL. It's very rare for a head coach to get five full seasons to turn a team around unless he's got a VERY good relationship with an owner who doesn't care about the media laughing at him every week and fans cashing in season tickets. Even then, until a head coach has at LEAST four years he hasn't had enough drafts or trades to build his own team, IMHO. He's still playing with his predecessors team, and while I still feel that a good head coach can tailor his game plan to maximize the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of his roster, the fact is that if the coach that built that team to play his style of ball couldn't do anything with them, his replacement will be lucky to do as well, let alone better. It's one of the reasons promoting coaches from within is such a good idea, because they can hit the ground running rather than having to start from nothing.

Canmore
10-24-2010, 04:57 AM
It usually works out that way, but I think a lot of fans and media markets screw themselves by taking that attitude and pressuring owners into making those kinds of decisions. My rule of thumb is:

5 years for a head coach,
4 years for a coordinator and
3 years for a position coach

Practically, however, you have to cut a year off each of those in the pressure cooker world of the NFL. It's very rare for a head coach to get five full seasons to turn a team around unless he's got a VERY good relationship with an owner who doesn't care about the media laughing at him every week and fans cashing in season tickets. Even then, until a head coach has at LEAST four years he hasn't had enough drafts or trades to build his own team, IMHO. He's still playing with his predecessors team, and while I still feel that a good head coach can tailor his game plan to maximize the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of his roster, the fact is that if the coach that built that team to play his style of ball couldn't do anything with them, his replacement will be lucky to do as well, let alone better. It's one of the reasons promoting coaches from within is such a good idea, because they can hit the ground running rather than having to start from nothing.

You make a very good an compelling argument, but in this win now at any cost NFL , how many head coaches have th luxury of 5 years to right the ship. I think this is Gary Kubiaks 5th year but I can't think of anyone else that has given that kind of time to a head coach without a playoff performance.

Bosco
10-24-2010, 06:03 AM
But is it a prerequisite not to have a gunslingers mentality to thrive in this offense, or is it just Cutler.

It's an absolute prerequisite.

Bosco
10-24-2010, 06:46 AM
The flip side, however, is the DJ quote here, and it's just as easy to say Cutler got dumped because he only knows one way to play QB (Bears fans would probably agree). If McDaniels is going after guys who do many things well and then trying to build an offense and defense out of them, well, however we feel about him right now, those are the teams that bring home Lombardi Trophies and feel it less when 31 teams pick over their free agents in the offseason.

This pretty much sums it up perfectly.

The Patriots built their dynasty off of acquiring players who fit their model for success both mentally and physically. McDaniels spent almost a decade learning under that same system and that is what he's bringing to Denver. He knows what players fit the schemes and they go acquire those players. Indy does the same thing as do the current Saints and Steelers to name a few.

That's one reason why Mike Shanahan was so successful here in Denver as well. He had a very specific type of player in mind for every position on offense and he routinely found those guys in low round draft picks and UDFAs and turned them into legitimate starters, especially at running back and along the O-line. Unfortunately that didn't extend to the defensive side of the ball where our scheme changed from year to year, even under the same coordinators. That lack of continuity resulted in lots of reaches, expensive free agent stop gaps and trying to pound square pegs into the proverbial round holes.

Lonestar
10-24-2010, 07:12 AM
Why are you so sure of this? I have never brought up the C word in a post, but why wouldn't C have thrived in this offense. I agree Marshall had to go, but why the C drama and end result?

Since none of us knows for sure what took place behind closed doors.

Who is to say that C after seeing the playbook was less than happy knowing he would be in a very controlled passing game. That he would be expected to hit the open man instead of going for the gusto each time.

Maybe both of them realized that neither of them liked each other.

Maybe C asked for an extention and big money. Josh told him that he would get it after he proved to him he could be a team player.

Who the hell knows what was said in private or what the vibes were.

One thing is certain C asked to be traded via not talking to the owner if not by all the other actions that went down.

We will most likely never know just what was the tipping poinnt that caused it to happen.

Way to many place all the blame on Josh and none on C.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

claymore
10-24-2010, 08:08 AM
Yes there have been changes in HC that did not necessitate lots of players leaving.

But that is not the case here.

Pat did not hire him for status quo in playbooks.

He hired him to bring in the Spread PBS. Scheme as well as the 3-4.

We all know that to be fact or he would not been hired.

He was not brought in to keep mikes playbook or staff.

Real simple. Yet no one wants to understand it.

Pat wants the winning traditions of NE.

Or he would have hired spagnola. Or morris.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Pat hired him to win. Pat didnt give a shit what system he used.

atwater27
10-24-2010, 08:12 AM
After 14 years the last ten being a slippery slope with zero hope of getting better just more lousy D and lousy red zone play. It was past time to make a change.

Now when Josh has been here ten years and there is no improvment then I jump over to the Josh has to go side.
Till then stop whining and support the guy
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

I'll wait 10 years for a mastermind who brought us consistent winning records during that time.

I ain't wasting ANY of my time on a punk ass kid who can't coach his way out of a paper bag.

Til then stop being a McDaniels apologist and trying to explain away all his mistakes...

HORSEPOWER 56
10-24-2010, 08:16 AM
Yes there have been changes in HC that did not necessitate lots of players leaving.

But that is not the case here.

Pat did not hire him for status quo in playbooks.

He hired him to bring in the Spread PBS. Scheme as well as the 3-4.

We all know that to be fact or he would not been hired.

He was not brought in to keep mikes playbook or staff.

Real simple. Yet no one wants to understand it.

Pat wants the winning traditions of NE.

Or he would have hired spagnola. Or morris.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Your last statement is the only one of the ones highlighted that I believe to be correct. Bowlen wants to win. He doesn't give a damn about the offensive playbook or the blocking scheme. He isn't Al Davis or Jerry Jones and doesn't get that involved with that stuff. He asks his coach, "what do you need to win?", the coach tells him, and he opens his wallet the best he can to acquire those personnel. No more, no less. Short of Al Davis and a coupe of other owners who are supposedly "great football minds", I seriously doubt McDaniels' job interview had anything to do with playcalling, schemes, or and analyzing game film.

Bowlen brought McDaniels in to WIN. In the job interview, McDaniels obviously got Bowlen to buy in to the notion that McDaniels could install a proven, winning system (from NE) and a team concept that had netted NE 3 Championships in the past decade. Bowlen didn't hire Josh because of X's and O's. Bowlen is a business man, not a great football mind. Bowlen expects results. He expects McDaniels to deliver on what he sold him on during the job interview. Bowlen was seeing visions of "NE West" and hired Josh based on pedigree.

BroncoWave
10-24-2010, 09:20 AM
I'll wait 10 years for a mastermind who brought us consistent winning records during that time.

I ain't wasting ANY of my time on a punk ass kid who can't coach his way out of a paper bag.

Til then stop being a McDaniels apologist and trying to explain away all his mistakes...

Good. By all means, don't.

www.redskinsforums.com

Enjoy.

Lonestar
10-24-2010, 10:00 AM
Your last statement is the only one of the ones highlighted that I believe to be correct. Bowlen wants to win. He doesn't give a damn about the offensive playbook or the blocking scheme. He isn't Al Davis or Jerry Jones and doesn't get that involved with that stuff. He asks his coach, "what do you need to win?", the coach tells him, and he opens his wallet the best he can to acquire those personnel. No more, no less. Short of Al Davis and a coupe of other owners who are supposedly "great football minds", I seriously doubt McDaniels' job interview had anything to do with playcalling, schemes, or and analyzing game film.

Bowlen brought McDaniels in to WIN. In the job interview, McDaniels obviously got Bowlen to buy in to the notion that McDaniels could install a proven, winning system (from NE) and a team concept that had netted NE 3 Championships in the past decade. Bowlen didn't hire Josh because of X's and O's. Bowlen is a business man, not a great football mind. Bowlen expects results. He expects McDaniels to deliver on what he sold him on during the job interview. Bowlen was seeing visions of "NE West" and hired Josh based on pedigree.

Pat is also smart enough to know that the injury situation may preclude winning at this time.

While he may not be a huge football mind he has owned the team for more than a quarter of a century (longer than some of of members have been alive) and is an active and respected member of the owners leadership.

To say he does not know Xs and Os is wrong.

To say that he can't see talent would also be wrong.

Yes he wants to win but he is smart enuff to know a young team does not gel overnite.

There is no doubt in my mind after hearing comments to the effect that his office is a couple of doors down from Joshes that he knows and approves of all the moves Josh has made in players. That being a given getting Tebow in itself makes this a longer term goal than win now. IMHO.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Lonestar
10-24-2010, 10:14 AM
The only thing that would have prevented him from succeeding in this offense is his gunslinger mentality, which he seemingly has no interest in changing.

There is little doubt in my mind that in very early conversations that Josh brought this up and Jay was hesitant and probably brought new contract into the convo.

So when some approached him about cassel he listened whether it be at the combine (Tneds contention) or when he listened to the call, he thought about it stronger than he would have it Jay would have been more enthusiatic about being in a "controlled" passing game.

As I said many times before. NO ONE knows what went on behind closed doors before the fire heated up.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

BroncoWave
10-24-2010, 12:44 PM
Definition of beating a dead horse:beat / floga dead horse, to persist in pursuing or trying to revive interest in a project or subject that has lost its usefulness or relevance. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/beat+a+dead+horse


The fact that McDaniels blew up an offensive unit for no reason other than to bring in his own guys at the expense of defensive personell does not fit into the dead horse argument; simply because we are seeing the results, or more importantly, lack of results as a TEAM from those actions. It is as relevant as a heart attack if you are a Broncos fan.

Those actions caused and is still causing us to spin our wheels. It was a waste of time, draft value, free agent dollars and potential wins as well as overall team potential.

Josh McDaniels ****** UP badly with his decision to throw away a perfectly good, young promising offense. Simply keping most of the offense intact while focusing on the defense and ST would have been the smartest and most productive course a new HC could have taken. How you guys cannot see that I have no idea, other than a blind allegiance to a coach that has given you nothing in return.

No, it IS beating a dead horse because no matter how much you people whine and bitch and complain about it; Cutler, Marshall, Hillis, and Scheffler are never coming back. Why not worry about the job McD is doing of coaching the guys he currently has instead of continuing to dwell on the guys he's gotten rid of?

Northman
10-24-2010, 01:22 PM
No, it IS beating a dead horse because no matter how much you people whine and bitch and complain about it; Cutler, Marshall, Hillis, and Scheffler are never coming back. Why not worry about the job McD is doing of coaching the guys he currently has instead of continuing to dwell on the guys he's gotten rid of?

Because his choices with those decisions deserve to be questioned.

claymore
10-24-2010, 01:31 PM
No, it IS beating a dead horse because no matter how much you people whine and bitch and complain about it; Cutler, Marshall, Hillis, and Scheffler are never coming back. Why not worry about the job McD is doing of coaching the guys he currently has instead of continuing to dwell on the guys he's gotten rid of?


Because his choices with those decisions deserve to be questioned.

Nobody cares how you win, they only care how you lose. McD deserves to be under a microscope until he can produce a winning season.

If he wouldnt have rocked the boat so much I would have been much more patient than I am right now.

Northman
10-24-2010, 01:39 PM
Nobody cares how you win, they only care how you lose. McD deserves to be under a microscope until he can produce a winning season.




Agree 100%

There's nothing in the rulebook that says fans have to be patient or understanding. McDaniels came in, made the moves he wanted too and either sinks or swims with those choices. But, the team was already heading in the right direction and didnt need to be gutted in certain positions so the onus is on McD to produce with his changes to keep up with upswing we were on.

Joel
10-24-2010, 01:40 PM
You make a very good an compelling argument, but in this win now at any cost NFL , how many head coaches have th luxury of 5 years to right the ship. I think this is Gary Kubiaks 5th year but I can't think of anyone else that has given that kind of time to a head coach without a playoff performance.
Thanks, and to answer your question, precious few. Kubiak's probably done if the Texans don't play a 17th game this year, and, as you note, even he is more the exception than the rule. If the Texans hadn't been a still weak expansion team when he got there he'd probably be gone already (though as new as the Texans are, Bob McNair is still something of an unknown). The good news, I think, is that Pat seems to be among the few owners who realize that whatever the fans and talking heads say, no one can MAKE him do anything. McDaniels will have the time he needs and deserves; what he does with it we can't know now, but will within the next two years (barring a lockout).

This pretty much sums it up perfectly.

The Patriots built their dynasty off of acquiring players who fit their model for success both mentally and physically. McDaniels spent almost a decade learning under that same system and that is what he's bringing to Denver. He knows what players fit the schemes and they go acquire those players. Indy does the same thing as do the current Saints and Steelers to name a few.

That's one reason why Mike Shanahan was so successful here in Denver as well. He had a very specific type of player in mind for every position on offense and he routinely found those guys in low round draft picks and UDFAs and turned them into legitimate starters, especially at running back and along the O-line. Unfortunately that didn't extend to the defensive side of the ball where our scheme changed from year to year, even under the same coordinators. That lack of continuity resulted in lots of reaches, expensive free agent stop gaps and trying to pound square pegs into the proverbial round holes.
Well, thanks to you as well, but it's really down to the difference between turning a playoff team or a dog into a Champion. The playoff team is already very good, so the popular Best Available Athlete won't do it if he doesn't happen to be skilled in the area they need; the dog team has holes everywhere, so they can use the Best Available Athlete immediately, and should grab him while they're still getting those rare and costly high draft picks. A whole lot of the Shanny vs. Josh debate boils down to a difference in fan opinion over which applied/s to Denver.

My point is, if McDaniels just comes in looking for guys to play "his" system (which is really Belichicks anyway) he risks running afoul of the same problem Shanny did. What he needs to do, IMHO, is go after the guys who have a wealth of talent in a lot of different areas so that he's got the personnel to play multiple systems well. From a fan perspective I DEFINITELY prefer that, because it means that even if McD doesn't stay his successor will have something to work with, rather than 53 cap liabilities who only know how to play McDanielsball. Part of what irked people about the offensive house cleaning was the feeling we were losing players with many talents, whose abilities McDaniels could put to as much use as Shanny did.

Sometimes coaching is as much or more about fitting your system to your personnel as vice versa. There's nothing wrong with going after guys who fit your system; obviously it's a good idea. Going after guys who ONLY fit your system is a little more dubious (especially if it's a successful and popular system, because then you have a really expensive player who can only do one or two things). That's what I was getting at; if McDaniels is building a team with many players who can do many things well it will be capable of excellence under many systems and conditions. After a SB appearance, let alone a win, the whole League will line up to see who we can't protect, but when it happened to the Pats they had more guys who could step into those roles without missing a beat. It wasn't because they drafted/signed the Noahs Ark of Pro Bowlers (two of everything, and all of them HoFers) but because they had a half dozen guys who could start in place of a LB, TE or RB, guys who could play WR or SS, or as comfortable at C as they were at LDE. Having five guys who can fill fifteen holes gives you tremendous flexibility, and prevents being locked into one system (whether or not it's any good, and whether or not you've got guys with the skills required).

atwater27
10-24-2010, 01:46 PM
Good. By all means, don't.

www.redskinsforums.com

Enjoy.

fat chance guy. Been a Broncos fan since before you were born. Been a Broncos fan before the mistake otherwise known as Josh McDaniels. Will be a broncos fan long after he is gone. Deal with it.

atwater27
10-24-2010, 01:50 PM
No, it IS beating a dead horse because no matter how much you people whine and bitch and complain about it; Cutler, Marshall, Hillis, and Scheffler are never coming back. Why not worry about the job McD is doing of coaching the guys he currently has instead of continuing to dwell on the guys he's gotten rid of?

LMAO. I am very much worried about the job McD is doing.