Lombardi: Changing coaches now would set the franchise back

[Buff]

Some good stuff in Lombardi's latest piece. He takes a pretty balanced look at the whole McDaniels situation. He's not really defending McDaniels per se, he kind of echoes what a lot of people have been saying about Bowlen's broken business model and how in many ways, McD has been set up to fail.


Scandal aside, Broncos can't be so wishy-washy with McDaniels
By Michael Lombardi NFL Network
NFL Network Insider

...

When youth is hired in any profession, there has to be an expected learning curve before the hire is made. If the hiring organization does not have the stomach to handle the tough times, then going young is not a good idea.

Yet the organization must have a support system in place for the youthful coach, to ensure all the right questions are being asked before each move is made. It's hard for many in the NFL to understand that questioning a move or a decision is healthy -- not being disloyal. That hearing a different point of view allows the person making the decision to see things in a different light.


When the Broncos hired McDaniels they had to expect some turbulent times. They had to expect their bright, young coach would have to endure adversity as he learned how to become a head coach. Denver gave him the power to build the team in the style of his choosing, and for the Broncos to change coaches now would set the franchise back, forcing an entirely new philosophy.

Years of bad drafting and bad free-agent signings hurt the Broncos before McDaniels became their head coach. Running both Jay Cutler and Brandon Marshall out of town probably didn't help. And McDaniels is paying a price for all of those moves, much like Mike Shanahan, the former coach of the Broncos, is now paying a price for all the Redskins' poor drafts and wasteful spending.


http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81c8bce6/article/scandal-aside-broncos-cant-be-so-wishywashy-with-mcdaniels?module=HP_cp2

[Jake Klug]

Some good stuff in Lombardi's latest piece. He takes a pretty balanced look at the whole McDaniels situation. He's not really defending McDaniels per se, he kind of echoes what a lot of people have been saying about Bowlen's broken business model and how in many ways, McD has been set up to fail.






http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81c8bce6/article/scandal-aside-broncos-cant-be-so-wishywashy-with-mcdaniels?module=HP_cp2

That guy loves him some Josh.

[Northman]

The franchise is already set back. And again, other organizations have turned it around in a year so its a lot of hot air honestly. This isnt the 60's.

[Jake Klug]

The franchise is already set back. And again, other organizations have turned it around in a year so its a lot of hot air honestly. This isnt the 60's.

Yeah, I dont think Lombardi realizes that this is no longer about fast tracking to success. Its pure hatred now. People would be OK with a rebuild as long as its not him doing it. And, as you said, its now a rebuild even though it wasnt when he took over.

[Lancane]

I asked this question the other day, and no one can answer the question...

Name a head coach (of the modern era) that has had a worse record in his first two seasons, to actually get a third season and has gone on to be a good, even stellar coach?

The answer? Not one...those who've had similar records as McDaniels that have entered a third year, remain mediocre. Among active coaches today, not one of them, that has earned any prestige have caused such a ruckus in regards to off-season moves nor not shown progress in their second season. Those that did not improve and got a third season, continued to be inconsistent and mediocre. So what if we give him another season and he sets us back even more? Then I guess it's worth it...because of the chance possibility he can succeed where others failed? Even though as of yet he's still not shown any real signs of progress!

[cardoso]

Lombardi is quickly becoming a clown. Ask him what haley, spango, and morris have down with the pathetic teams they took over in a year. What was the dolphins record previous to last years again? The team has already been set back and ruined by Mcdaniels. now you're going to let the same guy that ruined it fix it? LMAO! That always works well :coffee:

[Broncos Mtnman]

Lombardi is a tool who likes for people to think he's a Broncos "insider."

I remember at the end of the 2008 season he went on TV the night after the Broncos lost to the Chargers and said that "Shanny isn't going anywhere."

:coffee:

[dogfish]

let's cut to the chase. . .

is this guy any relative of vince, or not?

[jhildebrand]

Keeping him setting the franchise back! He ships out talent and draft picks. The theme of McDaniels coaching tenure here in Denver can be summed up in two words: personality conflicts!

First it was with Cutler. People wrote it off and wanted to dismiss it. Then came the refusal to play Hillis and it was said there was no "documented" conflict when it was apparent something happened. Then Marshall. Yet the proponents insisted it was everybody but McD-he was shipping out bad apples. Then Scheffler. Then Nolan. Now a large part of the coaching staff. At some point you have to see the common denominator is McDaniels!

Finally, it would be one thing to keep a guy who shows signs of improvement but this guy continues to make the same mistakes, the team is getting worse, and each week seems to bring a new embarassment.

Forgive me if I don't see the rational in keeping him through the remainder of this season let alone next year.

[silkamilkamonico]

Denver's just plain ----ed either way you look at it.

Keeping McDaniels will continue to set the franchise back IMHO.

Changing coaches is going to open up a good 2-3 year period of 3-4 win seasons or less, and maybe that's ok.

Our defense is going to be completely stripped to nothing in a couple years with the turnover of Bailey, Goodman, Dawkins, dline, DJ WIlliams (?)...

We have an offense that is set to only succeed in a certain system (like McDaniels), and we have an invested first round QB (Tebow) that will more than likely turn off a lot of coaching candidates unless they are allowed to look in another direction.

Denver's ----ed for the next 5 years or so, and the sooner people can just accept that, the better, IMHO.

[cardoso]

Denver's just plain ----ed either way you look at it.

Keeping McDaniels will continue to set the franchise back IMHO.

Changing coaches is going to open up a good 2-3 year period of 3-4 win seasons or less, and maybe that's ok.

Our defense is going to be completely stripped to nothing in a couple years with the turnover of Bailey, Goodman, Dawkins, dline, DJ WIlliams (?)...

We have an offense that is set to only succeed in a certain system (like McDaniels), and we have an invested first round QB (Tebow) that will more than likely turn off a lot of coaching candidates unless they are allowed to look in another direction.

Denver's ----ed for the next 5 years or so, and the sooner people can just accept that, the better, IMHO.

normally I would think this would be ok to think, but seeing what shanny has done in 1yr in washington, what morris, spang, haley have done in one year with their new teams, and considering the jump the dolphins did last year im now longer with this mind frame. I do believe we can bring in a coach that can turn it around! Lets get er done!

[TimTebow15MVP]

Keeping him setting the franchise back! He ships out talent and draft picks. The theme of McDaniels coaching tenure here in Denver can be summed up in two words: personality conflicts!

First it was with Cutler. People wrote it off and wanted to dismiss it. Then came the refusal to play Hillis and it was said there was no "documented" conflict when it was apparent something happened. Then Marshall. Yet the proponents insisted it was everybody but McD-he was shipping out bad apples. Then Scheffler. Then Nolan. Now a large part of the coaching staff. At some point you have to see the common denominator is McDaniels!

Finally, it would be one thing to keep a guy who shows signs of improvement but this guy continues to make the same mistakes, the team is getting worse, and each week seems to bring a new embarassment.

Forgive me if I don't see the rational in keeping him through the remainder of this season let alone next year.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tyCqCrZwOs

[Ravage!!!]

It wouldn't do the team any good to change right now...but damn... it sure would make me feel good!

[PAINTERDAVE]

Denver's just plain ----ed either way you look at it.

Keeping McDaniels will continue to set the franchise back IMHO.

Changing coaches is going to open up a good 2-3 year period of 3-4 win seasons or less, and maybe that's ok.

Our defense is going to be completely stripped to nothing in a couple years with the turnover of Bailey, Goodman, Dawkins, dline, DJ WIlliams (?)...

We have an offense that is set to only succeed in a certain system (like McDaniels), and we have an invested first round QB (Tebow) that will more than likely turn off a lot of coaching candidates unless they are allowed to look in another direction.

Denver's ----ed for the next 5 years or so, and the sooner people can just accept that, the better, IMHO.

I disagree. I do not think it is a fact that we will be a 3-4 win team for several years.

Too often posters here state opinions and predictions as fact...
then make all of their point hinge on that false supposition.

I myself have done it...
stating as a fact that Orton will be traded.

It is sometimes easier to see it in the posts of others than in what we write ourselves.

Point is...
none of us can predict the future.

[jhildebrand]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tyCqCrZwOs

WTF was the point of that? :confused: I get that you love Tebow and by default the guy who drafted him. Great! Good for you. It doesn't change my post. Tell me where it was offbase?

[jhildebrand]

Denver's just plain ----ed either way you look at it.

Keeping McDaniels will continue to set the franchise back IMHO.

Changing coaches is going to open up a good 2-3 year period of 3-4 win seasons or less, and maybe that's ok.

Our defense is going to be completely stripped to nothing in a couple years with the turnover of Bailey, Goodman, Dawkins, dline, DJ WIlliams (?)...

We have an offense that is set to only succeed in a certain system (like McDaniels), and we have an invested first round QB (Tebow) that will more than likely turn off a lot of coaching candidates unless they are allowed to look in another direction.

Denver's ----ed for the next 5 years or so, and the sooner people can just accept that, the better, IMHO.

In some ways I would be inclined to agree with you on this Silk. But when you think about a team like KC who has been bad for a while and think it through, you can see how this line of thought might be a bit off.

Had KC made a move with Carl sooner and made the changes in the FO they have, they would have seen the turnaround they are having much sooner.

SD was terrible for quite some time. Marty was just what they needed and their cupboards were bare. He turned it around quickly.

That is why I argue against the idea of giving a coach a set 3 years no matter what. You should see progress by the middle of the second year. You can see it in St Louis, TB, you could see it in any of Marty's stops. We aren't seeing it with Josh but Lombardi wants to use fear to keep him around for another year.

[TimTebow15MVP]

I dont love mcd. I just doubt hell be fired unless were losing badly next year. Tebow is a player that any coach would wanna coach. who cares where theyd a drafted him. that decision is not theres. hes on the team now and hes coachable. has all the intanglebles, can make all the throws. can run with the best of them. he has it all. dont care what anybody says about mechanics schmanics. hes shortened it up a bit. and brees throws the same way. its all about recognition, reading the defenses. i dare anybody say tebow wont be able to read defenses! nobodies gonna work harder in the weight room and film room than tebow!

So for those saying the next coach would not want tebow is foolish.

and the song was not just for you, it was for all of these overly dramatic bronco fans. Including you. :)

[TimTebow15MVP]

In some ways I would be inclined to agree with you on this Silk. But when you think about a team like KC who has been bad for a while and think it through, you can see how this line of thought might be a bit off.

Had KC made a move with Carl sooner and made the changes in the FO they have, they would have seen the turnaround they are having much sooner.

SD was terrible for quite some time. Marty was just what they needed and their cupboards were bare. He turned it around quickly.

That is why I argue against the idea of giving a coach a set 3 years no matter what. You should see progress by the middle of the second year. You can see it in St Louis, TB, you could see it in any of Marty's stops. We aren't seeing it with Josh but Lombardi wants to use fear to keep him around for another year.


soooo if the broncos win 5 games like the rams theyll be alright in your book? Keep in mind that the rams buccs have been picking in the top 5 for a while now. all of these franchises who have turned it around qucik has had that top draft pick to draft that franchise changing player. buccs got mccoy, talib, falcons got matty ice, rams got bradford, long and many other top 5 draft picks. they all got that franchise chaging player. detroit got suh.....which is why there all ov a sudden headed in the right direction. it is simply the broncos turn to pick high and bring in that high draft pick talent. wish it coulda happend last year. wed have suh..... but this year should make up for all of that with the shit load of Dl talent coming in.

imagine atlanta with no matt ryan, imagine detroit without suh and the attitude he brung there. imagine the buccs without mccoy and freeman, imagine the rams with no bradford :shocked:

im sure there fan bases are looking back and probably glad they sucked. because it landed them a franchise changing players that put there teams back on the map.

[silkamilkamonico]

In some ways I would be inclined to agree with you on this Silk. But when you think about a team like KC who has been bad for a while and think it through, you can see how this line of thought might be a bit off.

Had KC made a move with Carl sooner and made the changes in the FO they have, they would have seen the turnaround they are having much sooner.

SD was terrible for quite some time. Marty was just what they needed and their cupboards were bare. He turned it around quickly.

That is why I argue against the idea of giving a coach a set 3 years no matter what. You should see progress by the middle of the second year. You can see it in St Louis, TB, you could see it in any of Marty's stops. We aren't seeing it with Josh but Lombardi wants to use fear to keep him around for another year.

I don't disagree with your post, but I;m looking at our team makeup.

We have absolutely no building blocks along the defense, with the exception of 2 young OLB's. Nowhere else IMO. KC at least has had building blocks with good young talent on defense, and they are now starting to see improvements after how many years?

I have seen nothing to make me think this defense is ever going to be good. Not with the players on it.

Under a new coach, who's our QB? Orton? I don't know.. Tebow? I don't know. Somebody else?

IMHO, there isn't a team in the NFL worse off than Denver is with a coaching change. And to make matters worse, I certainly do not feel like McDaniels will change it around.

BTW, this will be the 5th consecutive season with no playoffs, and to ad dmore doom and gloom we are worse off now then we were 2-3 years ago.

KC has been bad for some time. SD was bad before Rivers for some time. Oakland has been bad for some time. Now is the time, IMHO, with everything considered, that Denver will be the bad team for some time.

[silkamilkamonico]

I dont love mcd. I just doubt hell be fired unless were losing badly next year. Tebow is a player that any coach would wanna coach. who cares where theyd a drafted him. that decision is not theres. hes on the team now and hes coachable. has all the intanglebles, can make all the throws. can run with the best of them. he has it all. dont care what anybody says about mechanics schmanics. hes shortened it up a bit. and brees throws the same way. its all about recognition, reading the defenses. i dare anybody say tebow wont be able to read defenses! nobodies gonna work harder in the weight room and film room than tebow!

So for those saying the next coach would not want tebow is foolish.

and the song was not just for you, it was for all of these overly dramatic bronco fans. Including you. :)

I think you couldn't be more wrong. I cannot see Tebow winning games when he has to throw the ball 25+ times a game, and in this day and age, those are the QB's you need for a dynasty.

[TimTebow15MVP]

Like josh freeman, flacco and them throwing it 25 times per game to win? you dont have to throw it 40 times. but i believe tebow could do that also. factor in him breakin up 30 yard runs of chunk yards and thats just as good as a 30 yard pass IMO. vick doesnt throw the ball 40 plus times either. they all just make plays.

TEBOW MAKES PLAYS.

[silkamilkamonico]

Like josh freeman, flacco and them throwing it 25 times per game to win? you dont have to throw it 40 times. but i believe tebow could do that also. factor in him breakin up 30 yard runs of chunk yards and thats just as good as a 30 yard pass IMO. vick doesnt throw the ball 40 plus times either. they all just make plays.

TEBOW MAKES PLAYS.

Freemen still has not beat a team with a winning record in the NFL, nor has he seen anything worthy of big game success so I'm going to go ahead and disregard him. Denver does not have Flacco's defense, nor is strong defense a staple of our organization like it is with Baltimore's. I don't believe Tebow can toss the ball around.

Tebow hasn't made any plays other than some nice TD runs in the redzone, which is all he should be used for.

Tebow is in no way, shape, or form, ready to step in and run a pass oriented offense in the NFL, otherwise we would see him more than a few package plays here and there.

[TimTebow15MVP]

wed never drafted tebow if we didnt think he could run a nfl offense. passing oriented or not. this offense is mostly about hitting deep balls and screens. tebow does both well. factor in him taking off for 20 chunk yards per drive and yoru offense is 10x better IMO. the quarterback is always unaccounted for...... theres a ton of 3rd downs or passing downs period where theres a ton of green grass and yardage to be had if only orton was quick enough to take off and go get it to extend possible scoring drives.

I have great faith that when tebows number is called to do whatever asked he will do it well.

[Tned]

normally I would think this would be ok to think, but seeing what shanny has done in 1yr in washington, what morris, spang, haley have done in one year with their new teams, and considering the jump the dolphins did last year im now longer with this mind frame. I do believe we can bring in a coach that can turn it around! Lets get er done!

Sorry, some of you guys are completely missing the facts with these "quick" turnaround examples you give, and they simply are NOT the proof you try and make them out to be.

Spags might have done a great job, but lets not ignore the facts that they have 6 or less wins 4 of the last 5 season, with only 6 TOTAL wins in the past three years and their turnaround is looking like a .500 or worse season this year (helped in large part by our loss to them). That's a LOT of high draft choices, including the QB that just tore us up.

Tampa had two top five picks (or in that range) in the last four drafts, and had been primarily in rebuild mode since the SB.

People like to throw out these VERY isolated "quick" turnarounds, but with only a few exceptions, they aren't really quick turn arounds. Typically, they are the result of 2-4+ years of relatively high draft picks that have left a team stocked with young players, and it may or may not have been the new coach that pulled it all together, but there is no evidence that without the previous rebuild that the turn around would have happened.

In the 'couple' cases that didn't involve a rebuild, that means they were a team that had a single down year or a couple mediocre years, which means in most cases they already had the talent, but the coach wasn't getting it done, they had injuries or other bad breaks, or whatever.

Anyway, enough rambling on this, but let me just finish that if you want to use a St. Louis as an example, then you need to wait until we have 3 or fewer wins for three years, including a number one overall pick, and THEN talk about who should be the coach for the miraculous turn around.

[Mike]

Sorry, some of you guys are completely missing the facts with these "quick" turnaround examples you give, and they simply are NOT the proof you try and make them out to be.

Spags might have done a great job, but lets not ignore the facts that they have 6 or less wins 4 of the last 5 season, with only 6 TOTAL wins in the past three years and their turnaround is looking like a .500 or worse season this year (helped in large part by our loss to them). That's a LOT of high draft choices, including the QB that just tore us up.

Tampa had two top five picks (or in that range) in the last four drafts, and had been primarily in rebuild mode since the SB.

People like to throw out these VERY isolated "quick" turnarounds, but with only a few exceptions, they aren't really quick turn arounds. Typically, they are the result of 2-4+ years of relatively high draft picks that have left a team stocked with young players, and it may or may not have been the new coach that pulled it all together, but there is no evidence that without the previous rebuild that the turn around would have happened.

In the 'couple' cases that didn't involve a rebuild, that means they were a team that had a single down year or a couple mediocre years, which means in most cases they already had the talent, but the coach wasn't getting it done, they had injuries or other bad breaks, or whatever.

Anyway, enough rambling on this, but let me just finish that if you want to use a St. Louis as an example, then you need to wait until we have 3 or fewer wins for three years, including a number one overall pick, and THEN talk about who should be the coach for the miraculous turn around.

I am not as concerned with the quick turn around as I am with getting our house in order and start building a foundation. Bringing in a new FO and coach cannot be any more painful than what has happened over the last two years.

IMO, sticking it out with McD without a strong GM and competant assistants is just prolonging the inevitable.

[Lancane]

Sorry, some of you guys are completely missing the facts with these "quick" turnaround examples you give, and they simply are NOT the proof you try and make them out to be.

Spags might have done a great job, but lets not ignore the facts that they have 6 or less wins 4 of the last 5 season, with only 6 TOTAL wins in the past three years and their turnaround is looking like a .500 or worse season this year (helped in large part by our loss to them). That's a LOT of high draft choices, including the QB that just tore us up.

Tampa had two top five picks (or in that range) in the last four drafts, and had been primarily in rebuild mode since the SB.

People like to throw out these VERY isolated "quick" turnarounds, but with only a few exceptions, they aren't really quick turn arounds. Typically, they are the result of 2-4+ years of relatively high draft picks that have left a team stocked with young players, and it may or may not have been the new coach that pulled it all together, but there is no evidence that without the previous rebuild that the turn around would have happened.

In the 'couple' cases that didn't involve a rebuild, that means they were a team that had a single down year or a couple mediocre years, which means in most cases they already had the talent, but the coach wasn't getting it done, they had injuries or other bad breaks, or whatever.

Anyway, enough rambling on this, but let me just finish that if you want to use a St. Louis as an example, then you need to wait until we have 3 or fewer wins for three years, including a number one overall pick, and THEN talk about who should be the coach for the miraculous turn around.

Actually Tned, why don't you look at every regime of the modern era before going off on the whole two-year argument. I've said this three or four times, asked anyone to prove me wrong. But, no coach in the last decade that has had a record similar or worse as McDaniels and who's gotten a third year have gone on to be successful, they've remained mediocre and inconsistent at best. Of those coaches that have earned any prestige, their teams showed tremendous signs of improvement from year one to year two, usually having winning records, three went to the Division Championship games in their second seasons and two to the Super Bowl. Show me! Can you prove to me that a coach needs three years to prove himself? When according to all I've read and seen, no other modern era coach has needed to?

[Jake Klug]

let's cut to the chase. . .

is this guy any relative of vince, or not?

I think a closer relative is pizza. (reference to the fact that Lombardis in NYC, is the first pizzaria)

[Dreadnought]

I am not as concerned with the quick turn around as I am with getting our house in order and start building a foundation. Bringing in a new FO and coach cannot be any more painful than what has happened over the last two years.

IMO, sticking it out with McD without a strong GM and competant assistants is just prolonging the inevitable.

Exactly. He could fail after 2 years. Or we could make him a 3 year failure. or keep him for half a dozen years of failure. The guy is simply inept, and he will not turn it around. So we'll suck with a new guy next year; fine. I'm good with that. Make some damned progress. Show some actual leadership. Demonstrate some integrity and commitment to the Team's success, rather than stroking your own ego by having to prove you are a boy genius. Allow your subordinates to succeed, and then give them full credit for it. It will all reflect back on you anyways over the long haul.

[Dzone]

Setting the franchise back? huh? This franchise already knows about being set back. Every day with Mcdaniels is setting the franchise back. It seems to grow worse every week.

[Jake Klug]

Exactly. He could fail after 2 years. Or we could make him a 3 year failure. or keep him for half a dozen years of failure. The guy is simply inept, and he will not turn it around. So we'll suck with a new guy next year; fine. I'm good with that. Make some damned progress. Show some actual leadership. Demonstrate some integrity and commitment to the Team's success, rather than stroking your own ego by having to prove you are a boy genius. Allow your subordinates to succeed, and then give them full credit for it. It will all reflect back on you anyways over the long haul.

nail, head.

But honestly, for me, this dismal state has been totally unnecessary. To reward that with a 3rd year is unthinkable and unforgiveable. And the hatred that exists now makes it absolutely intolerable.

[broncofaninfla]

I agree that changing coaches every 2-3 years NEVER works but something has got to change. If Denver opts to give Mcd one more year then Xanders has to go.

[Jake Klug]

I agree that changing coaches every 2-3 years NEVER works but something has got to change. If Denver opts to give Mcd one more year then Xanders has to go.

Xanders doesnt order the Code Reds.

[G_Money]

I just don't see how it's recoverable for Josh at this point.

He came in and had bookend tackles, a quality guard, a pro bowl QB and WR, another great receiver, a pass-catching TE, a smash-mouth RB...and a lot of junk on defense other than a couple of players.

He put his staff together, keeping the OL/RB coach combo that made us one of the most feared rushing attacks in the league, added a lot of quality defensive coaches, and made me say "maybe we can fix this problem after all. Take what we've got on offense, fix the defense, and call it a day."

Two years later, all the players on offense he was given are gone or will be gone, except for Clady and Kuper, neither of whom are well-suited for the new blocking scheme.

The OL and RB coach left, and now we can't run the ball. The OL replacement is a career TE coach at the pro level. When he coached OL in college he was fired shortly thereafter. Their RB coach replacement for the best in the business coached RBs for 6 years in Buffalo where the running game was the definition of average at best.

The RB we had is a top-10 rusher for someone else. The QB and WR got the new deals they wanted somewhere else and we're no better for all the draftpicks we got in return. We've wasted picks on various players, doubled up on positions we'd solved in return for abandoning positions that are still unsolved.

The defense is a worse mess now that the quality DC has been let go, again replaced with someone who had never done the job before in the pros, with terrible results. The staff feels so betrayed they are leaking information to the press like a sieve.

And now we're the laughingstock of the league with our filming of an opposing team's practice, further dragging a proud team's name through the mud.

How do we recover from that? Hope that Wink can coach up whatever new defensive players we get? That didn't work too well this offseason. Draft a ton of defenders? It'd be a start, but how soon can they be ready? We've already drafted 3 corners, let the one that cost a 1st round pick go, and still don't have anyone we are positive can be more than a nickel back and return guy.

Our young OL might or might not be able to get it together. A better coach there would help, but what better coach would come here knowing the axe is hovering over the neck of the head coach? Same with the defensive coordinator, or the RB coach.

We can get different guys, but would they be better? No DC that worked with Josh was willing to come here to work with him again. One of them took a demotion to work with the Ravens rather than come here.

Head coaches around the league, past and present, look at what we've done and what we're doing with disgust. Players and insiders call him a bully, a guy who openly plays favorites and dogs non-favorites as outsiders.

I don't get the idea of "Just give him one more year." Why would that work out better? He HAD a great situation and pissed it all away. Great Situation 2.0 is not coming back around. One of those bookend tackles is a FA after this season, and has spent most of this one demoted to backup even when healthy, and while his replacement was getting killed at the position. He's not coming back. Josh spent a 1st rounder on a RB who can't stay healthy and whom he won't let run the ball the rest of the game if he fumbles.

What in the last 2 years makes anyone think he will do something different with the next year he's given than he's done with the last two?

I'd love to hear why Wink will no longer be a basement-level DC if we give him more talent, knowing that we "gave him more talent" this offseason based on our talent evaluation skills and that bombed.

Or how our OL just needs another year to gel when our RT won't be back so we'll be gelling again next season. BTW, if Tebow's starting then RT is the most important position on the line. Maybe you can just move Clady to RT after a lifetime at LT. That didn't work the other way for Pro-Bowler Tony Jones; sometimes you can't switch the habits of a lifetime that easily.

How does it get better with McDaniels here? I'm curious.

I just don't see how he gets the goodwill back in this town. He can't just get back to mediocre. He has to get playoffs-good and he has to do it fast. How does he do that with the mess he's made for himself?

If he's just gonna get fired after - or during - next year, then why are we allowing him to get to next year?

~G

[rationalfan]

But honestly, for me, this dismal state has been totally unnecessary. To reward that with a 3rd year is unthinkable and unforgiveable. And the hatred that exists now makes it absolutely intolerable.

the fault of your statement is that is presumes everyone shares your opinion of mcd. while i don't think there are many outright mcd supporters, there aren't as many haters are you suggest. it's like the political landscape, the screaming minority makes so much noise people assume they're the majority. not true.

most fans just want the broncos to win. they don't care if mcd, shanny or molly ringwald is the coach. they just want victories.

and for whatever reason today i feel i have to end a post with this: it's just football, everyone. it's not global politics. it's not internal debates on the future of free energy. it's just a game that people like to talk about.

[G_Money]

But my crappy day isn't made better by good news in world politics or free energy, rf.

It's made better by joyously tuning in to a game, or logging on to a message board, to share good times with other fans about a team.

So yeah, people tend to get more invested in sports. Possibly because in sports there are clear winners and losers, and immediate returns. In politics there are murky outcomes, lots of spin and slanting of information, claims of victory that are followed by the pains of betrayal and defeat...

Wait, now I think I'm talking about the Broncos again...

~G

[Jake Klug]

the fault of your statement is that is presumes everyone shares your opinion of mcd. while i don't think there are many outright mcd supporters, there aren't as many haters are you suggest. it's like the political landscape, the screaming minority makes so much noise people assume they're the majority. not true.

Youre being delusional. He's the most despised member of the Broncos organization ever.


most fans just want the broncos to win. they don't care if mcd, shanny or molly ringwald is the coach. they just want victories.

This isnt 2009.


and for whatever reason today i feel i have to end a post with this: it's just football, everyone. it's not global politics. it's not internal debates on the future of free energy. it's just a game that people like to talk about.

Thanks for that. Maybe you should go debate free energy and stop wasting your time here. Or better yet, maybe you should start living up to your name. Letting Josh remain head coach at this point would make as much sense as giving Cpt. Smith a bonus after he hit the iceberg.

[rationalfan]

Youre being delusional. He's the most despised member of the Broncos organization ever.



This isnt 2009.



Thanks for that. Maybe you should go debate free energy and stop wasting your time here. Or better yet, maybe you should start living up to your name. Letting Josh remain head coach at this point would make as much sense as giving Cpt. Smith a bonus after he hit the iceberg.

it's called objectivity. try it.

[Jake Klug]

it's called objectivity. try it.

Ive got news for you, dude. Everyone's biased.

[Northman]

Sorry, some of you guys are completely missing the facts with these "quick" turnaround examples you give, and they simply are NOT the proof you try and make them out to be.

Spags might have done a great job, but lets not ignore the facts that they have 6 or less wins 4 of the last 5 season, with only 6 TOTAL wins in the past three years and their turnaround is looking like a .500 or worse season this year (helped in large part by our loss to them). That's a LOT of high draft choices, including the QB that just tore us up.

Tampa had two top five picks (or in that range) in the last four drafts, and had been primarily in rebuild mode since the SB.

People like to throw out these VERY isolated "quick" turnarounds, but with only a few exceptions, they aren't really quick turn arounds. Typically, they are the result of 2-4+ years of relatively high draft picks that have left a team stocked with young players, and it may or may not have been the new coach that pulled it all together, but there is no evidence that without the previous rebuild that the turn around would have happened.

In the 'couple' cases that didn't involve a rebuild, that means they were a team that had a single down year or a couple mediocre years, which means in most cases they already had the talent, but the coach wasn't getting it done, they had injuries or other bad breaks, or whatever.

Anyway, enough rambling on this, but let me just finish that if you want to use a St. Louis as an example, then you need to wait until we have 3 or fewer wins for three years, including a number one overall pick, and THEN talk about who should be the coach for the miraculous turn around.

Emmm, no your kind of wrong too Tned. Just because those teams were bad for a while and had some high draft picks those picks were not selected by those coaches so to ASSUME that they were fantastic choices to begin with is misleading. Bottom line, when the new coaches came in they made the right moves and had the right schemes to get their teams back on the winning track. Just because they happened to be in the bottom barrell before those coaches came in doesnt mean they were already set to succeed. Detroit for YEARS had TERRIBLE 1st round draft choices so none of that has played into what the new coach has done this year.

[Northman]

I just don't see how it's recoverable for Josh at this point.

He came in and had bookend tackles, a quality guard, a pro bowl QB and WR, another great receiver, a pass-catching TE, a smash-mouth RB...and a lot of junk on defense other than a couple of players.



Thats another great point.

How many new coaches came in and pissed all over the players and assistant coaches when they came in? I dont see all this drama unfolding in those locations. I dont hear about "illegal videotaping" from those organizations. There's a bigger problem with McDaniels than just the lack of winning. They guy has an attitude problem.

[rationalfan]

Ive got news for you, dude. Everyone's biased.

you're right, true objectivity is only a theory because personal perspective will always provide bias. but aspiring for objectivity is important, as opposed to allowing personal biases to dominate all thought patterns.

beyond that, and returning to the topic of the thread, i really don't care if mcd stays or goes. i'm just trying to suggest that not everyone follows your opinions. plus, it's kind of fun to read the fury that comes from people who seem so astounded when people carry opposing beliefs.

[TXBRONC]

Thats another great point.

How many new coaches came in and pissed all over the players and assistant coaches when they came in? I dont see all this drama unfolding in those locations. I dont hear about "illegal videotaping" from those organizations. There's a bigger problem with McDaniels than just the lack of winning. They guy has an attitude problem.

Hearing things like he took his entire coaching before the owner to give then a verbal dressing down and rumors that screaming at people wanting to know who turned him in doesn't do much build a reputation for being likable .

[Jake Klug]

you're right, true objectivity is only a theory because personal perspective will always provide bias. but aspiring for objectivity is important, as opposed to allowing personal biases to dominate all thought patterns.

Now youre a victim of the same flaw you accused me of. This suggestion pre-supposes that someones dislike or emotional reaction isnt grounded in some form of sound reasoning. Youre simply not able to parse this out either. It varies. Youd likely be looking for exceptions when you should be looking for similarities.


beyond that, and returning to the topic of the thread, i really don't care if mcd stays or goes. i'm just trying to suggest that not everyone follows your opinions. plus, it's kind of fun to read the fury that comes from people who seem so astounded when people carry opposing beliefs.

Once again, youre being delusional. McDaniels is absolutely incindiary. Someone who is truly rational could see that.

[Tned]

Actually Tned, why don't you look at every regime of the modern era before going off on the whole two-year argument. I've said this three or four times, asked anyone to prove me wrong. But, no coach in the last decade that has had a record similar or worse as McDaniels and who's gotten a third year have gone on to be successful, they've remained mediocre and inconsistent at best. Of those coaches that have earned any prestige, their teams showed tremendous signs of improvement from year one to year two, usually having winning records, three went to the Division Championship games in their second seasons and two to the Super Bowl. Show me! Can you prove to me that a coach needs three years to prove himself? When according to all I've read and seen, no other modern era coach has needed to?


I am not as concerned with the quick turn around as I am with getting our house in order and start building a foundation. Bringing in a new FO and coach cannot be any more painful than what has happened over the last two years.

IMO, sticking it out with McD without a strong GM and competant assistants is just prolonging the inevitable.

Believing McDaniels is the wrong guy, and accepting that changing horses may set things back, but be worth it is completely valid. I'm unconvinced McDaniels is the right guy, so I fully get this.

My post was in response the poster I quoted and others that say "see, Spags turned Stl around in one year, See the Atlanta coach turned it around in one year, see, Dolphins wen worst to first in one year under new coach...."

Those scenarios are few and far between, and in most cases, like Stl, there is more to the story, such as sucking for an extended time and getting lots of high draft picks, including the number one overall (I think that's where Bradford went, my mind is mushy at the moment).

[rationalfan]

Now youre a victim of the same flaw you accused me of. This suggestion pre-supposes that someones dislike or emotional reaction isnt grounded in some form of sound reasoning. Youre simply not able to parse this out either. It varies. Youd likely be looking for exceptions when you should be looking for similarities.



Once again, youre being delusional. McDaniels is absolutely incindiary. Someone who is truly rational could see that.

good points. much better than i expected from this forum (no offense to anyone, in particular). makes me feel hopeful that we're not all mouth-breathers overreacting to everything like cavemen.

your problem is assuming my forum handle defines who i am. by that rationale (pun intended) we have a fellow member who literally eats staples.

[Dreadnought]

Believing McDaniels is the wrong guy, and accepting that changing horses may set things back, but be worth it is completely valid. I'm unconvinced McDaniels is the right guy, so I fully get this.

My post was in response the poster I quoted and others that say "see, Spags turned Stl around in one year, See the Atlanta coach turned it around in one year, see, Dolphins wen worst to first in one year under new coach...."

Those scenarios are few and far between, and in most cases, like Stl, there is more to the story, such as sucking for an extended time and getting lots of high draft picks, including the number one overall (I think that's where Bradford went, my mind is mushy at the moment).

T, I take it back to the single wisest thing I've ever been told. Its like a Unified theory for life, back over 35 years ago

"First rate people hire other first rate people

Second rate people hire third rate people"

Now, explain our current coaching staff. Does it tell you anything? I'll concede I think Bowlen is a first rate person, and he thought thats what he was getting

[Tned]

Emmm, no your kind of wrong too Tned. Just because those teams were bad for a while and had some high draft picks those picks were not selected by those coaches so to ASSUME that they were fantastic choices to begin with is misleading. Bottom line, when the new coaches came in they made the right moves and had the right schemes to get their teams back on the winning track. Just because they happened to be in the bottom barrell before those coaches came in doesnt mean they were already set to succeed. Detroit for YEARS had TERRIBLE 1st round draft choices so none of that has played into what the new coach has done this year.

I'm not saying all the picks panned out or were great, I'm just saying it's misleading to say Spags turned St. Louis around on a dime, so therefore if we replace Josh, the same is likely to happen here. That's fools gold at best.

Let's be clear, I am not defending the job Josh has done, and I am not convinced he is the way forward. I'm enough of a pragmatist to realize that it is at best a toss up as to whether staying the course or changing HC's is the best way to go. We are just as likely to change coaches and be in a three year stretch of 3 win seasons as we are to be first in our division next year with Josh.

Josh ****** up and I've been saying that for 18 months, even if I am a bit bruised and battered by the attacks I got for stating the facts all this time, but at the same time that doesn't mean that changing coaches is the 'smart' thing to do now.

[Tned]

T, I take it back to the single wisest thing I've ever been told. Its like a Unified theory for life, back over 35 years ago

"First rate people hire other first rate people

Second rate people hire third rate people"

Now, explain our current coaching staff. Does it tell you anything? I'll concede I think Bowlen is a first rate person, and he thought thats what he was getting

I agree with the sentiment, 100%. A smart manager is hiring someone and training them to take his/her job.

Now, look at Shanny with Kubiak at OC or with Kyle Shanahan as OC (even though he was in TB and Hou first). It's not always clear who first rate people are, but I hear you.

Again, I am not and have never claimed to be a Josh McDaniels fan. There are plenty of things I like about him, but I have maintained since the Cassel/Draft timeframe that he is a young, rookie, immature (in HC terms) coach with a big ego, and as a result is making lots of mistakes.

The question in my mind is simply how much he's progressed in two seasons, and when, or if, he will turn the corner into becoming a good HC.

Anyone, Bowlen, Ellis, you or any other fan, that is suprised by what we've seen from a young, inexperienced HC should simply re-examine what their initial expectations were.

[Jake Klug]

Now youre a victim of the same flaw you accused me of. This suggestion pre-supposes that someones dislike or emotional reaction isnt grounded in some form of sound reasoning. Youre simply not able to parse this out either. It varies. Youd likely be looking for exceptions when you should be looking for similarities.


Once again, youre being delusional. McDaniels is absolutely incindiary. Someone who is truly rational could see that.


good points. much better than i expected from this forum (no offense to anyone, in particular). makes me feel hopeful that we're not all mouth-breathers overreacting to everything like cavemen.
your problem is assuming my forum handle defines who i am. by that rationale (pun intended) we have a fellow member who literally eats staples.

Just because Im the one who made the point that you referenced above, that doesnt mean Im the only one who this applies to. Maybe you should just stop assuming that everyone whose sentiment shows emotion is a caveman. Someone whose response reflects emotion might be more enlightened than you think. These people acknowledge inherent biases and dont run from them and so they lack pretense.

[G_Money]

Believing McDaniels is the wrong guy, and accepting that changing horses may set things back, but be worth it is completely valid. I'm unconvinced McDaniels is the right guy, so I fully get this.

My post was in response the poster I quoted and others that say "see, Spags turned Stl around in one year, See the Atlanta coach turned it around in one year, see, Dolphins wen worst to first in one year under new coach...."

Those scenarios are few and far between, and in most cases, like Stl, there is more to the story, such as sucking for an extended time and getting lots of high draft picks, including the number one overall (I think that's where Bradford went, my mind is mushy at the moment).

You think the Rams had more than we have to work with? They were 32nd in points scored and 31st in points allowed - LAST year.

Previous year? 30th and 31st.

Before that? 28th and 31st.

Nothing they had was working, and if they HAD talent it sure wasn't making an appearance on the field.

We have:

Clady - 2nd tackle taken, probably best tackle in the draft
Moreno - first RB taken
Royal - 2nd round WR, probably 2nd best WR in that draft
Orton - Throwing for 5000 yards this year
D. Thomas - 1st WR taken
Ayers - 1st Round pass rusher
Tebow - 2nd QB taken in his draft

Notice how only one of those is on defense? We have a ton of first round talent on offense.

--------side tangent-------------------

This isn't counting Marshall (best WR in that draft), Cutler (best QB in that draft), Scheffler (2nd round TE, best pass-catching TE in his draft), or Hillis as lost assets.

If we'd drafted something other than another high WR and kept Hillis instead of Moreno, where would we be? Orakpo or Cushing would have been there instead of Moreno, and Alex Mack would have been there if we really wanted to fix that position. If we'd believed in Orton instead of picking Tebow there would have been even more defense.

We traded Cutler for 2 firsts, then blew them. How is that different than being a terrible team and blowing picks? We doubled our chances to get good players in the first round 2 years running and then fumbled it. Twice.

We found Lloyd, but also drafted Thomas, even though we also had Royal and Gaffney.

We didn't like Cutler, traded him for a QB who was as good in our system as Cutler would have been, then didn't believe in that QB and traded picks to get another QB. We traded a thousand yard running back for a 3rd QB because we'd already dropped a 1st rounder on a RB.

----------------end side tangent-----------------------

That said, there's still quite a bit of talent on the offense. It may be redundant to the talent we got rid of, but the offense is about where it was 2 years ago, minus a running game.

We had the picks, and we still have lots of offensive talent. The cupboard is not bare. We do still need a defensive overhaul, but if the job was good two years ago, then after two years of treading water and screwing up our wealth of picks it's still a decent one today.

Getting a personnel guy and a defensive mastermind (as coordinator, not necessarily head coach) could make this team over in 2 years. If McDaniels can fire 84% of the roster or whatever since he got here, then the next guy can burn through the defense in the same time period. Spags got his Defense from atrocious to middle-of-the-pack after 1 season.

If we could do that...wait, we did, last year. :mad:

A one-to-two-year turnound is possible. I just don't think it's possible for McDaniels.

~G

[Dreadnought]

Again, I am not and have never claimed to be a Josh McDaniels fan. There are plenty of things I like about him, but I have maintained since the Cassel/Draft timeframe that he is a young, rookie, immature (in HC terms) coach with a big ego, and as a result is making lots of mistakes.

The question in my mind is simply how much he's progressed in two seasons, and when, or if, he will turn the corner into becoming a good HC.

I think we're talking past each other. Mistakes, losses, I could have handled. I've rooted for this team when they were bad before. In this case we have what I think are failures of character - of the irreparable variety. Things like hauling your subordinates into the bosses office for a public reaming after the Raiders game, and other assorted humiliations inflicted on his troops. These kind of episodes tell me he is not a first rate man, not merely a losing coach. That's why I don't want to waste more time on this chump.

[Northman]

I'm not saying all the picks panned out or were great, I'm just saying it's misleading to say Spags turned St. Louis around on a dime, so therefore if we replace Josh, the same is likely to happen here. That's fools gold at best.

As has been pointed out already, look at whats going on here Tned. No other coach has this much controversy surrounding him both on and off the field. Everytime ive seen this kind of issue it NEVER ends well for that organization. So while the story of Morris and Spags isnt over its not hard to conclude that they are going about it the right way. Again, just because St. Louis had been struggling before Spags got there does not mean they were set to go when he got there.

Furthermore, look at what Spags had to take over compared to McDaniels. There is no way to justify McDaniels coming in and stripping this team down the way he did. Its ridiculous to even think that. And yes, i understand we are now in this position and cant go back and change it. However, one would have to be a fool to continue down this road with this HC. Its not going to get better because just like Cutler needing to get over his mental issues the same can be said for this HC. Until McDaniels gets humbled he will not change and he will not win. I would be my life on it. The guy just doesnt get it and has no sense of direction at all.


Let's be clear, I am not defending the job Josh has done, and I am not convinced he is the way forward. I'm enough of a pragmatist to realize that it is at best a toss up as to whether staying the course or changing HC's is the best way to go. We are just as likely to change coaches and be in a three year stretch of 3 win seasons as we are to be first in our division next year with Josh.

And see, i would rather take a chance on a new guy and rebuild than to stay the course with McDaniels. I have no faith in this guy whatsoever to right the ship.


Josh ****** up and I've been saying that for 18 months, even if I am a bit bruised and battered by the attacks I got for stating the facts all this time, but at the same time that doesn't mean that changing coaches is the 'smart' thing to do now.

Now as in this week or at the end of the year? Either way i think we would be just fine. Bowlen took a chance on a guy who was young and thought it was the right move. Its panning out to be a massive mistake because this is not what Bowlen wanted i can assure you of that. But Bowlen has a lot of pride and doesnt want to look the fool so i wouldnt be shocked if he stayed with McD to try and save face. He knows the fanbase is pissed and rightfully so. Looking at what has happened in Dallas and Minny only tells me that the Denver Broncos would be OK if McDaniels gets fired now or at the end of the year. We survived during the Wade Phillips era and we will survive without McDaniels. Wont we wont survive is staying with what isnt working and the one common denominator is Josh McDaniels.

[G_Money]

The question in my mind is simply how much he's progressed in two seasons, and when, or if, he will turn the corner into becoming a good HC.

Anyone, Bowlen, Ellis, you or any other fan, that is suprised by what we've seen from a young, inexperienced HC should simply re-examine what their initial expectations were.

But that's just it. WHAT progress has he made? :confused:

The backlash over his handling of Cutler didn't make him waver at all with Marshall or Scheffler or Hillis. That's how he deals with players.

And coaches.

And staff.

Every single thing that's happened up through this week is reflective of his flaws as a leader, and they've been obvious since he got here. Nothing has changed.

Our staff is worse now than in his first season, not better. Our record is worse. Our talent, if not worse, certainly isn't better. Our reputation is far worse.

My expectations were for struggles as we improved, and for a coach to learn and grow.

I don't mind growing pains. But for there to BE growing pains, by definition there needs to be growth.

*looks around*

Nope, no growth. This is just rolling around on broken glass.

Get a new janitor and clean this mess up.

~G

[Northman]

Nope, no growth. This is just rolling around on broken glass.



~G


That is the best way to sum it all up. Well said.

[Buff]

I think we're talking past each other. Mistakes, losses, I could have handled. I've rooted for this team when they were bad before. In this case we have what I think are failures of character - of the irreparable variety. Things like hauling your subordinates into the bosses office for a public reaming after the Raiders game, and other assorted humiliations inflicted on his troops. These kind of episodes tell me he is not a first rate man, not merely a losing coach. That's why I don't want to waste more time on this chump.

I'm still in McD's camp, but I find myself waivering more this week than ever before...

And it has nothing to do with Spygate or Peyton Hillis or being 3-8. I can get past all of those as rookie mistakes.

The thing that I find most bothersome is that his assistant coaches are willing to go behind his back to the media and talk about what a bad guy he is and how he treats them poorly. The combination of the Jay Glazer/Mike Silver pieces are - by far - the most damning bits of evidence that McD ought to be fired IMO.

[rationalfan]

Just because Im the one who made the point that you referenced above, that doesnt mean Im the only one who this applies to. Maybe you should just stop assuming that everyone whose sentiment shows emotion is a caveman. Someone whose response reflects emotion might be more enlightened than you think. These people acknowledge inherent biases and dont run from them and so they lack pretense.

now you're losing me. and inserting words into my posts. i didn't write that everyone who reacts with emotion is a caveman - you're inferring a generalization from my characterization.

you're also narrow-minded to assume emotional reaction = caveman. remember, there are more emotions than unbridled anger/frustration. the caveman characterization comes from the truth that many people on this board react without reason. i've done it too. but there are people who make a habit out of it and, frankly, little productive discussion comes from it.

with that, have a nice day. i'm done responding to your posts because they're not beneficial to this thread or any ongoing broncos discussion. later.

[Jake Klug]

now you're losing me. and inserting words into my posts. i didn't write that everyone who reacts with emotion is a caveman - you're inferring a generalization from my characterization.

you're also narrow-minded to assume emotional reaction = caveman. remember, there are more emotions than unbridled anger/frustration. the caveman characterization comes from the truth that many people on this board react without reason. i've done it too. but there are people who make a habit out of it and, frankly, little productive discussion comes from it.

with that, have a nice day. i'm done responding to your posts because they're not beneficial to this thread or any ongoing broncos discussion. later.

Youre the one who used cavemen in that context. I was just responding to it.

[Dreadnought]

I'm still in McD's camp, but I find myself waivering more this week than ever before...

And it has nothing to do with Spygate or Peyton Hillis or being 3-8. I can get past all of those as rookie mistakes.

The thing that I find most bothersome is that his assistant coaches are willing to go behind his back to the media and talk about what a bad guy he is and how he treats them poorly. The combination of the Jay Glazer/Mike Silver pieces are - by far - the most damning bits of evidence that McD ought to be fired IMO.

Anyone can make mistakes on players. I thought Brandon Lloyd was a bad signing. Terrell Davis lasted 'til the 6th, and nobody drafted Rod Smith at all. Some idiot thought Maurice Clarett was worth taking a chance on. There's more to it than just honest mistakes in this case though. The losses are just symptoms of worse stuff under the surface

[BigDaddyBronco]

I'm still in McD's camp, but I find myself waivering more this week than ever before...

And it has nothing to do with Spygate or Peyton Hillis or being 3-8. I can get past all of those as rookie mistakes.

The thing that I find most bothersome is that his assistant coaches are willing to go behind his back to the media and talk about what a bad guy he is and how he treats them poorly. The combination of the Jay Glazer/Mike Silver pieces are - by far - the most damning bits of evidence that McD ought to be fired IMO.
That and how Nolan left. He didn't agree with McDaniels in coaching philosophy and so they parted ways. What 32 year old coach thinks he knows better that a guy who had coached good defenses for years? Maybe it was Nolan getting tired of McDaniels and wanting to leave, or maybe he saw a better chance of getting another head coaching job in Miami, we'll never know.

Something is amiss when all your assistant coaches are people we have never heard of before. Either Bowlen doesn't want to pay for good coaches, McD doesn't want anyone to question him, or no other coaches want to work with McD. I'm wondering if we ever find out.

[Northman]

Anyone can make mistakes on players. I thought Brandon Lloyd was a bad signing. Terrell Davis lasted 'til the 6th, and nobody drafted Rod Smith at all. Some idiot thought Maurice Clarett was worth taking a chance on. There's more to it than just honest mistakes in this case though. The losses are just symptoms of worse stuff under the surface

Yea, for me early on i was able to overlook the Cutler, Sheff, and Marshall thing because of the 6-0 start, etc. But then when he got into Nolan and forced him out, traded Hillis, and now the "video" scandal its obvious this guy has some real personality issues. Right now the mistakes are going well beyond the wins and losses.

[dogfish]

I'm still in McD's camp, but I find myself waivering more this week than ever before...



come on buff, you can do it. . .




That and how Nolan left. He didn't agree with McDaniels in coaching philosophy and so they parted ways. What 32 year old coach thinks he knows better that a guy who had coached good defenses for years? Maybe it was Nolan getting tired of McDaniels and wanting to leave, or maybe he saw a better chance of getting another head coaching job in Miami, we'll never know.

Something is amiss when all your assistant coaches are people we have never heard of before. Either Bowlen doesn't want to pay for good coaches, McD doesn't want anyone to question him, or no other coaches want to work with McD. I'm wondering if we ever find out.

at this point, i would say the chance of getting any quality assistants in here is about nil-- even without the nolan fiasco, nobody with better options wants to come in and work for a guy who looks like he's about to get fired. . .

[G_Money]

His DEFENSIVE coaches all had good names. Nunnelly, the DL coach from the Chargers. Ed Donatell was a longtime DB coach around the league, including here before. Wink was a good LB coach. Nolan was a former head coach as well as respected DC. The D coaches were all good names. It was the offensive coaches that were more suspect.

When Nolan went and nobody else would take the job (I assume after talking to Nolan) he stayed in house with Wink who had never been a DC anywhere before. The new LB coach? Phifer, who hadn't done it in 5 years.

The new OL coach had never done his job in the pros before, the new RB coach was bad at it, the QB coach was Josh's brother, the assistant offensive coach was from the terrible Panthers who had spent most of his career as a QB coach...

For all that the D had good names, the O had no-names, and it got far worse once the Shanahan remnants went away. It was very much like Josh didn't want a single voice on offense that could gainsay him in any way, and then once Nolan had to go he ran the defensive replacements the same way.

Terrible way to mold a coaching staff.

~G

[Jake Klug]

come on buff, you can do it. . .

Buff must think he is a member of the band on the titanic.


at this point, i would say the chance of getting any quality assistants in here is about nil-- even without the nolan fiasco, nobody with better options wants to come in and work for a guy who looks like he's about to get fired. . .

This is an interesting direction youve gone in. In one of Pats divergent comments recently, he made mention of Josh having proper help in the form of staff. The first thing I thought of is what you mentioned here. Its indeed very problematic. Except Pat said he may have to intervene. I wonder how Pat thinks he can help with this now...after all that has happened. And if Pat was going to intervene, he should have done so about 11 months ago before Nolan left.

Is Pat going to convince guys he goes out and gets to play by Josh's ridiculous rules? Or is a concession that wasnt made for Nolan (eg no talking to the media) going to be given to the next guy? Again, Pat should have done this 11 months ago.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

I did not take the time to read the entire thread - Lombardi was on this morning with Vic/Gary.

You can listen to what he said at:

http://www.877theticket.com/#vmix_media_id=19206794

[Jake Klug]

I did not take the time to read the entire thread - Lombardi was on this morning with Vic/Gary.

You can listen to what he said at:

http://www.877theticket.com/#vmix_media_id=19206794

Good work, Carol.

[NightTrainLayne]

Actually Tned, why don't you look at every regime of the modern era before going off on the whole two-year argument. I've said this three or four times, asked anyone to prove me wrong. But, no coach in the last decade that has had a record similar or worse as McDaniels and who's gotten a third year have gone on to be successful, they've remained mediocre and inconsistent at best. Of those coaches that have earned any prestige, their teams showed tremendous signs of improvement from year one to year two, usually having winning records, three went to the Division Championship games in their second seasons and two to the Super Bowl. Show me! Can you prove to me that a coach needs three years to prove himself? When according to all I've read and seen, no other modern era coach has needed to?

I'm not necessarily arguing against your point, but you've whittled down your criteria to such a point that you may as well be saying, "Tell me who, besides Josh McDaniels has had the same results as Josh McDaniels and gone on to success".

It took me however just a few seconds to think of two pretty successful coaches that have done exactly this if you broaden out just a little bit from your "last 10 years" qualifier.

Jimmy Johnson: Took over after legnedary Landry. Completely overhauled the roster, and went 1-15, then started season #2 3-7.

I'd have to say McD is ahead of JJ through this point of season #2.

Jeff Fisher: Took over mid-season and went 1-5. Then started the next season 4-6. Hard to really hold season one against Fisher, but it took Fisher FIVE SEASONS to post a winning record. Five seasons is a long damn time to not see a winning season.

Fisher's still coaching, and JJ coaced into this decade with the Dolphins. I have to think that both qualify as "modern era" coaches.

Doesn't mean squat either way as it relates to McD. Neither side of the argument, yours nor the other, predicts the future.

[Nomad]

Good memory because I didn't remember that about Jimmy Johnson!!

[Tned]

G/Dread/North,

I only have a sec, sneaking a peak from work, so won't directly respond to each post, but will say by and large I don't disagree with any of the points you've just made in response to me.

This recent back and forth simply stemmed from me saying that taking the 1 out of 10 or 1 out of 20 or maybe it's 1 out of 30+ 'amazing' franchise turn arounds, which a couple posters (not so much you guys) point to, is not a valid basis for a change. Basing it on what McD has done and is likely to do, is. I do believe that the next coach (depending on whether we go after an experienced, steady candidate or another McD/Spags type) is just as likely to be worse than McD than he is to be better.

The main point I have tried to make in multiple threads, and not done a very good job, is that the decision needs to be made based on the facts that Bowlen/Ellis have, not based on appeasing the angry fans.

You guys SHOULD have been angry when he was tearing the franchise apart (and some were), now that he has, as part of his rebuilding plan, there is a school of thought that says the best approach is to let him finish his plan (that he was allowed, foolishly in my mind, to start).

[underrated29]

Sorry, some of you guys are completely missing the facts with these "quick" turnaround examples you give, and they simply are NOT the proof you try and make them out to be.

Spags might have done a great job, but lets not ignore the facts that they have 6 or less wins 4 of the last 5 season, with only 6 TOTAL wins in the past three years and their turnaround is looking like a .500 or worse season this year (helped in large part by our loss to them). That's a LOT of high draft choices, including the QB that just tore us up.

Tampa had two top five picks (or in that range) in the last four drafts, and had been primarily in rebuild mode since the SB.

People like to throw out these VERY isolated "quick" turnarounds, but with only a few exceptions, they aren't really quick turn arounds. Typically, they are the result of 2-4+ years of relatively high draft picks that have left a team stocked with young players, and it may or may not have been the new coach that pulled it all together, but there is no evidence that without the previous rebuild that the turn around would have happened.

In the 'couple' cases that didn't involve a rebuild, that means they were a team that had a single down year or a couple mediocre years, which means in most cases they already had the talent, but the coach wasn't getting it done, they had injuries or other bad breaks, or whatever.

Anyway, enough rambling on this, but let me just finish that if you want to use a St. Louis as an example, then you need to wait until we have 3 or fewer wins for three years, including a number one overall pick, and THEN talk about who should be the coach for the miraculous turn around.



Excellent Post Tned. THis needs to be seen again. I think people are still caught up in the blame game and finger pointing. No one is saying Josh has not effed up, or anything else. All is said here is that NO team has turned it around in one year. Those teams have been bottom feeders for a while now. Sure a new coach has come in, but a lot of those teams have had several new coaches. Look at the browns. They have had as many new coaches as quartbacks and they still suck. Teams do not turn around in one year!




Actually Tned, why don't you look at every regime of the modern era before going off on the whole two-year argument. I've said this three or four times, asked anyone to prove me wrong. But, no coach in the last decade that has had a record similar or worse as McDaniels and who's gotten a third year have gone on to be successful, they've remained mediocre and inconsistent at best. Of those coaches that have earned any prestige, their teams showed tremendous signs of improvement from year one to year two, usually having winning records, three went to the Division Championship games in their second seasons and two to the Super Bowl. Show me! Can you prove to me that a coach needs three years to prove himself? When according to all I've read and seen, no other modern era coach has needed to?


Tned is not saying (from how I interrupted his post) that josh will be successful in his third year, his 5th year or ever. He is not even talking about coaching. He is talking about those teams- the ones who went to division champs, and suber bowls...The teams (since you neglected to name) were either - A: crappy for a while and had been building with low picks and burning through coaches, and finally were ready to compete and got another new coach. or B: were a good team all along and the coach retired or the team had an off year....I know for a fact Indy is on you list and that imo is why you did not name those teams or coaches.

Look at the cowboys and or vikings. THey SUCK BALLS this year...both will have new coaches and next year will probably be back to the superbowl contenders they were the years prior. But the "new" coach will more than likely be back into the playoffs and a superbowl because the team is already stacked. Not because they turned it around in one year....Its more about the fact that the team had an Off year.

[Northman]

Good memory because I didn't remember that about Jimmy Johnson!!

Unfortuantely again, it goes beyond the wins and losses. Neither JJ or Fisher came in and butted heads with players and assistant coaches. The problems with McDaniels goes way beyond the play on the field so Lancane is right that there hasnt been a senario like this where a coach did that and succeeded.

[Dzone]

Hearing things like he took his entire coaching before the owner to give then a verbal dressing down and rumors that screaming at people wanting to know who turned him in doesn't do much build a reputation for being likable .
Exactly! It has become clearly obvious that Mcdaniels has ZERO people skills and ZERO charisma...and if the rumor is true that Mcdaniels is a BULLY, then that is unforgivable...Without basic people skills, it doesnt matter shit how much he knows about football.

[Mike]

Excellent Post Tned. THis needs to be seen again. I think people are still caught up in the blame game and finger pointing. No one is saying Josh has not effed up, or anything else. All is said here is that NO team has turned it around in one year. Those teams have been bottom feeders for a while now. Sure a new coach has come in, but a lot of those teams have had several new coaches. Look at the browns. They have had as many new coaches as quartbacks and they still suck. Teams do not turn around in one year!






Tned is not saying (from how I interrupted his post) that josh will be successful in his third year, his 5th year or ever. He is not even talking about coaching. He is talking about those teams- the ones who went to division champs, and suber bowls...The teams (since you neglected to name) were either - A: crappy for a while and had been building with low picks and burning through coaches, and finally were ready to compete and got another new coach. or B: were a good team all along and the coach retired or the team had an off year....I know for a fact Indy is on you list and that imo is why you did not name those teams or coaches.

Look at the cowboys and or vikings. THey SUCK BALLS this year...both will have new coaches and next year will probably be back to the superbowl contenders they were the years prior. But the "new" coach will more than likely be back into the playoffs and a superbowl because the team is already stacked. Not because they turned it around in one year....Its more about the fact that the team had an Off year.

And I don't think any of us expect an immediate playoff turn-around with a new FO/Coach. Many of us would be satisfied with 1) lack of drama and 2) signs of progress. There is no reason to not expect that a first year crew is incapable of doing those two things. We do know that in his 2 seasons here, McD is incapable of accomplishing it.

[BigDaddyBronco]

Unfortuantely again, it goes beyond the wins and losses. Neither JJ or Fisher came in and butted heads with players and assistant coaches. The problems with McDaniels goes way beyond the play on the field so Lancane is right that there hasnt been a senario like this where a coach did that and succeeded.
But JJ did things his own way in the draft, trades, etc. that were roundly criticized at the time and didn't win immediately. He also ended his tenure by clashing with Jerry Jones. He is forgiven now since we know he was right, but he looked like an egomaniac at the time.

[underrated29]

This is going to sound like I am magnetic on mcd balls, but know that I am not. However:









But that's just it. WHAT progress has he made? :confused:
~G




I think you answered your own questions here G......

No, It certainly could have been much more progress, much better handling of personnel and picks, but this is not about the blame game. This is about the progress that has been made and the progress that needs to be done.









We have:

Clady - 2nd tackle taken, probably best tackle in the draft
Moreno - first RB taken
Royal - 2nd round WR, probably 2nd best WR in that draft
Orton - Throwing for 5000 yards this year
D. Thomas - 1st WR taken
Ayers - 1st Round pass rusher
Tebow - 2nd QB taken in his draft

Notice how only one of those is on defense? We have a ton of first round talent on offense.


We found Lloyd, but also drafted Thomas, even though we also had Royal and Gaffney.


That said, there's still quite a bit of talent on the offense. It may be redundant to the talent we got rid of, but the offense is about where it was 2 years ago, minus a running game.

We had the picks, and we still have lots of offensive talent. The cupboard is not bare. We do still need a defensive overhaul, but if the job was good two years ago, then after two years of treading water and screwing up our wealth of picks it's still a decent one today.
~G




This is the progress that has been made. We have an offense that has been rebuilt and when healthy is ready to roll. SURE it is not built upon progress, because we already had this with shanny here. But that is not the point. The point is we had an offense, stripped it down, blew it up and re built it with what you listed above. A good talented offense.

Now it is the defenses turn. Once again, sure it should have been the Ds turn when he first arrived. Everyone in the world knew this. Bowlen even said it. But that is not what happened and that is not the point. The point is, the team has been scrapped and the offensive side (joshs side) has been rebuilt first. Now its time for him to redo the defense. Can he do it?, Will he do it? Will he get a chance to do it? We dont know.



But what we do know is that IF we get another new janitor in here to clean up this mess as you say. We will once again have to strip down our talented offense, as it is based on a scheme that only Mcd runs. We might be able to fix the defense in one year, but then our offense will be inept as not many players will fit the scheme we will newly use, or be able to run it seemlessly. Our guys still do not run it to perfection, but they are doing a lot better job than last year.



So if we forget about what could have been and what should have been. Because we all know that he took a page out of Nuts book and literally screwed the pooch six ways from sunday. And focus on the progress that has been made since that time and focus on how much further we will fall if we strip down again. We are sitting in a catch 22 then. If you ask me. But with an upside.

We keep him, and he probably messes things up further and we waste another year. But he could finish what he started and we could be dominant with a new defense to match our offense. Or we toss him and start the whole rebuilding thing again. Either way looks bleak, but I will take the one with the upside if it is me.

[TXBRONC]

I'm not necessarily arguing against your point, but you've whittled down your criteria to such a point that you may as well be saying, "Tell me who, besides Josh McDaniels has had the same results as Josh McDaniels and gone on to success".

It took me however just a few seconds to think of two pretty successful coaches that have done exactly this if you broaden out just a little bit from your "last 10 years" qualifier.

Jimmy Johnson: Took over after legnedary Landry. Completely overhauled the roster, and went 1-15, then started season #2 3-7.

I'd have to say McD is ahead of JJ through this point of season #2.

Jeff Fisher: Took over mid-season and went 1-5. Then started the next season 4-6. Hard to really hold season one against Fisher, but it took Fisher FIVE SEASONS to post a winning record. Five seasons is a long damn time to not see a winning season.

Fisher's still coaching, and JJ coaced into this decade with the Dolphins. I have to think that both qualify as "modern era" coaches.

Doesn't mean squat either way as it relates to McD. Neither side of the argument, yours nor the other, predicts the future.

I'm not sure how Jimmy Johnson makes your case considering that he finished year 2 at 7-9. His team showed improvement not regression over the first ten games of year 2. Which means Johnson's team went 4-2 down the stretch. So will see if McDaniels headed to a Jimmy Johnson like 2nd season. One other item Johnson's team was young on both sides of ball. McDaniels team is young on the offensive side of the ball and old othe defensive side of ball by his choice.

Also Fisher's teams in those first five seasons didn't regress and it also worth noting that he was breaking in new quarterback who came to him via Division I-AA.

[Lancane]

Tned is not saying (from how I interrupted his post) that josh will be successful in his third year, his 5th year or ever. He is not even talking about coaching. He is talking about those teams- the ones who went to division champs, and suber bowls...The teams (since you neglected to name) were either - A: crappy for a while and had been building with low picks and burning through coaches, and finally were ready to compete and got another new coach. or B: were a good team all along and the coach retired or the team had an off year....I know for a fact Indy is on you list and that imo is why you did not name those teams or coaches.

Okay, I've done read a lot of the posts in regards to my own Underrated, some have mentioned Jimmy Johnson who went from 1-15 to 7-9, again...he showed signs of improvement. Jeff Fisher, went from being 1-5 as an interim to 7-9, followed by an 8-8 year, he's a very inconsistent coach, I would not say he's a prestigious coach by any means, in fifteen season his team has been above .550 only six times, and below .500 or below twelve? Not very good in my honest opinion.

Again, not one coach in the modern era has come into a football team and made as big a ruckus as McDaniels, posted a worse record with little sign of improvement within two season, to be given a third year to have gone on to be stellar coaches...not one. But of course, people will argue against that, because they don't want to admit their optimistic stake in the matter may be wrong!

And, then of course what you give that coach is another year to cause more of a ruckus, to make bad moves and hurt the organization...even if not on purpose, just the fact he will be desperate could cause damage to the team. It sends the wrong message to the fans and so forth, let's not forget that then again we're a year closer to the roster being his guys and not just football players. How far do you let it go...and even if we went 8-8 or 9-7, is it a mirage like his first season? Let's face it, without Nolan the defense is worse and luck, along with Brandon Stokley and Brandon Marshall were good for most of those wins...

The argument stands, do we want to be like Tennessee who wins big now and then but is inconsistent, do we want to be like Cincinnati who never seems to have the right peaces in play to ever get anywhere? Giving him that third year, when no improvement has been seen, especially in light of the damage that has been done would be foolish, period...and what I was showing with that question is that recent history in regards to that, proves as much...not everyone will believe that it's so, that he'll be different and hell...that's their choice. I just don't see anything to be positive about with McDaniels as the head coach of this team.

And before anyone labels me a complete hater, I was one of his biggest advocates to be hired for the position, whilst the majority wanted Spagnuolo. So how do you think I feel? Feels shitty to think this kid could be a good head coach and then proves himself a complete, inept ass-clown.

[Tned]

And I don't think any of us expect an immediate playoff turn-around with a new FO/Coach. Many of us would be satisfied with 1) lack of drama and 2) signs of progress. There is no reason to not expect that a first year crew is incapable of doing those two things. We do know that in his 2 seasons here, McD is incapable of accomplishing it.

I look at it a little different, and while highly opinionated, I know that I may very well be wrong on this. Spygate II aside, most of the drama happened in or was a knock on effect to his first offseason. I firmly believe that he should have tried to trade for Cassel, should have been forced to make up with Cutler, kept his ego under control with Marshall, played Hillis, even if it made Moreno look like a bad pick (as I've said, I'm warming up to this as the reason), etc.

However, once he was given permission, explicitly or implicitly to make those ill advised changes to the roster, which created the need to draft Tebow, the need to draft DT, the need to draft Smith for a 6th round TE, etc., then you have to discount all of the noise and drama that came with those screw ups (as I view them).

So, once you accept that he was allowed to make those changes (possibly encouraged to do so), then I put those behind me and don't hold the Cutler, Marshall, Hillis ****up against him in terms of whether or not he should be given a third year.

Now, some of the most discouraging recent things, which point to still having much maturing to do is that he reportedly:


Chewed the team out after the Jets loss (crazy, since they played awesome that game and had it won but for a bad break on the hail mary-like PI call).
Chewed his coaching staff out in front of Bowlen
Brought his staff together prior to announcement of fine, said some things and told them not to talk about it or jobs would be lost.


Even with those, that might be a situation where Bowlen or Ellis needs to sit him down and help him with his management skills.

This is akin to a work philosophy I have as a manager. I can't stand when a person is allowed to make mistake after mistake without a supervisor/manager correcting him/her, mentoring/teaching him/her, but instead just letting the mistakes or bad performance continue, then one day pull a Trump and say, "you're fired".

Now, if Bowlen and Ellis have been counselling him, and he's been blowing them off, then away he goes. Other wise, they should be helping him become a better manager. That's part of hiring a young, inexperienced guy.

[underrated29]

Okay, I've done read a lot of the posts in regards to my own Underrated, some have mentioned Jimmy Johnson who went from 1-15 to 7-9, again...he showed signs of improvement. Jeff Fisher, went from being 1-5 as an interim to 7-9, followed by an 8-8 year, he's a very inconsistent coach, I would not say he's a prestigious coach by any means, in fifteen season his team has been above .550 only six times, and below .500 or below twelve? Not very good in my honest opinion.

Again, not one coach in the modern era has come into a football team and made as big a ruckus as McDaniels, posted a worse record with little sign of improvement within two season, to be given a third year to have gone on to be stellar coaches...not one. But of course, people will argue against that, because they don't want to admit their optimistic stake in the matter may be wrong!

And, then of course what you give that coach is another year to cause more of a ruckus, to make bad moves and hurt the organization...even if not on purpose, just the fact he will be desperate could cause damage to the team. It sends the wrong message to the fans and so forth, let's not forget that then again we're a year closer to the roster being his guys and not just football players. How far do you let it go...and even if we went 8-8 or 9-7, is it a mirage like his first season? Let's face it, without Nolan the defense is worse and luck, along with Brandon Stokley and Brandon Marshall were good for most of those wins...

The argument stands, do we want to be like Tennessee who wins big now and then but is inconsistent, do we want to be like Cincinnati who never seems to have the right peaces in play to ever get anywhere? Giving him that third year, when no improvement has been seen, especially in light of the damage that has been done would be foolish, period...and what I was showing with that question is that recent history in regards to that, proves as much...not everyone will believe that it's so, that he'll be different and hell...that's their choice. I just don't see anything to be positive about with McDaniels as the head coach of this team.

And before anyone labels me a complete hater, I was one of his biggest advocates to be hired for the position, whilst the majority wanted Spagnuolo. So how do you think I feel? Feels shitty to think this kid could be a good head coach and then proves himself a complete, inept ass-clown.



Cant argue with that. That is why I see us in that catch 22....We fire and new hire- and then we must rebuild the offense and still work on the defense and we will no matter what be set back a few year for this process to play out. Short term= shitty, long term could be very good.

Or we can keep him here a 3rd year, and he could keep on his path and destroy us further. I am not exactly sure how, but then again I was not exactly sure how someone could come in and trade away 2 player that I thought were Untradeable. So it could happen. and we are still stuck in catch 22. Or the last one is he can right the ship and fix the defense....But why would he do that now, when that was all he had to do from the start. Because he is young, because he sucks, because, because, because.....I have no clue. All I know is that I want us to go DE, NT, LB, S with our fist 4 picks- unless someone like a stud CB or whatever falls to us.

[Northman]

But JJ did things his own way in the draft, trades, etc. that were roundly criticized at the time and didn't win immediately. He also ended his tenure by clashing with Jerry Jones. He is forgiven now since we know he was right, but he looked like an egomaniac at the time.

Totally different senarios. Doing it your way and how you go about are two different things.

[Northman]

Lmao

Does anyone really think Jimmy Johnson would of come in and tried to trade Troy Aikman and then not pay a head case like Michael Irvin? Really? Come on.

[Lancane]

Cant argue with that. That is why I see us in that catch 22....We fire and new hire- and then we must rebuild the offense and still work on the defense and we will no matter what be set back a few year for this process to play out. Short term= shitty, long term could be very good.

Or we can keep him here a 3rd year, and he could keep on his path and destroy us further. I am not exactly sure how, but then again I was not exactly sure how someone could come in and trade away 2 player that I thought were Untradeable. So it could happen. and we are still stuck in catch 22. Or the last one is he can right the ship and fix the defense....But why would he do that now, when that was all he had to do from the start. Because he is young, because he sucks, because, because, because.....I have no clue. All I know is that I want us to go DE, NT, LB, S with our fist 4 picks- unless someone like a stud CB or whatever falls to us.

Because, we've seen a coach damage a team further when desperation sets in, what if there is more to the whole spygate issue, just what if? There goes our next starting defensive stud that we were gonna draft because we lose a pick, will he get desperate enough to allow it to happen again? He's thrown his players and colleagues under the bus, lied to the media and the fans, destroyed the core of a solid offense, shown his lack of skill in dealing with other coaches, shown he lacks the mentality to deal with certain athletes, treated his staff like they were children, has added some questionable talent, blown picks on key positions that still seem to be in question. With someone that has done that much damage it can always get worse.

Do you think the American people would've allowed George Bush Jr. to have a third term if he was able to? I sure in the hell do not believe so.

If we're going to take the lump and be set back, it's best to be set back sooner and get someone in here that can clean up the mess, rather then letting it get so bad...that the next guy has no chance of it and we're continually rebuilding for the next decade...that's how I see it at least.

[I Eat Staples]

Keeping McDaniels sets the franchise back more than anything else ever could. Even if we fire him and take 3 to 5 years to become a contender again, it's better than keeping him and letting him dig a bigger and bigger hole. We'll never be a contender under this regime, period.

[JaxBroncoGirl]

I asked this question the other day, and no one can answer the question...

Name a head coach (of the modern era) that has had a worse record in his first two seasons, to actually get a third season and has gone on to be a good, even stellar coach?

The answer? Not one...those who've had similar records as McDaniels that have entered a third year, remain mediocre. Among active coaches today, not one of them, that has earned any prestige have caused such a ruckus in regards to off-season moves nor not shown progress in their second season. Those that did not improve and got a third season, continued to be inconsistent and mediocre. So what if we give him another season and he sets us back even more? Then I guess it's worth it...because of the chance possibility he can succeed where others failed? Even though as of yet he's still not shown any real signs of progress!

Being a new Bronco fan, I am at a loss as to why McD has been allowed so much power. I have been sitting back and reading about my new team as much as I can. At this point, McD is not getting the job done. Too many Rookie Coach mistakes, one being the filming of the walk through (hiring friends and family) "YES Men" for Josh; his ego (which I believe will destroy him), and the growth of the Broncos organization. His approach to being a mentor and coach is very immature. Getting rid of good players without trying to "meet in the middle and be the bigger man to create a win-win situation".

I think McD should be an assistant coach for a while before trying to be a head coach. Leaders should lead and they know the difference when making a decision (based on fact not insecurity). McD must be extremely insecure, short man disease. Continue to surround yourself with Yes Men, and they will eventually yes you into the ground. Very sad for the talent on this team.

[Jake Klug]

Being a new Bronco fan, I am at a loss as to why McD has been allowed so much power. I have been sitting back and reading about my new team as much as I can. At this point, McD is not getting the job done. Too many Rookie Coach mistakes, one being the filming of the walk through (hiring friends and family) "YES Men" for Josh; his ego (which I believe will destroy him), and the growth of the Broncos organization. His approach to being a mentor and coach is very immature. Getting rid of good players without trying to "meet in the middle and be the bigger man to create a win-win situation".

I think McD should be an assistant coach for a while before trying to be a head coach. Leaders should lead and they know the difference when making a decision (based on fact not insecurity). McD must be extremely insecure, short man disease. Continue to surround yourself with Yes Men, and they will eventually yes you into the ground. Very sad for the talent on this team.

He has many nicknames along these lines:
Boy King
Little General
Pocket Napoleon
...

[Timmy!]

I honestly think McD is back next year no matter what. At this point I want his head on a stake, but feel we're stuck with the guy. Something has to change though, so I pray at least Xander's butt is gone. Maybe McD can succeed if all he has to do is coach and not deal with GM duties.

[Lancane]

I honestly think McD is back next year no matter what. At this point I want his head on a stake, but feel we're stuck with the guy. Something has to change though, so I pray at least Xanders butt is gone. Maybe McD can succeed if all he has to do is coach and not deal with GM duties.

Well, I think Bowlen is feeling the pressure that's why I think there were two different statements released. Bowlen and his family only own the controlling stock of the franchise, 39.2 percent is owned by private investors. And he can not sell the majority stock, because Kaiser the former owner and one of those same said investors has first right to buy the controlling stock. The Board of Directors are probably applying pressure in light of it all, the fourth quarter reports are coming in and sales are on a downward slope, that's cause for concern. If he keeps McDaniels, then does he start losing seat attendance? The fans have a much louder voice and say then some believe in the matters, after all...sports go hand in hand with city and league politics, and unhappy fans can make issues for organizations.

Personally I think that Bowlen has no choice but to make either several moves around him, placing coaches on the staff he feels capable and a solid G.M. in place, or he'll just fire McDaniels outright.

[silkamilkamonico]

Lmao

Does anyone really think Jimmy Johnson would of come in and tried to trade Troy Aikman and then not pay a head case like Michael Irvin? Really? Come on.

I can understand the Aikman comparison, but Brandon Marshall is much more a TO than he ever was a Michael Irvin. I think TO got flat out released more times then he was traded.

[dogfish]

I honestly think McD is back next year no matter what. At this point I want his head on a stake, but feel we're stuck with the guy. Something has to change though, so I pray at least Xander's butt is gone. Maybe McD can succeed if all he has to do is coach and not deal with GM duties.

i've seen people say this before-- don't let 'em fool you, bro. . .

getting rid of xanders won't help. . . he's a bean counter and a coffee-fetcher-- he's not the guy making personnel decisions. . . firing a figurehead would be nothing more than a token. . .

besides which, as far as i can see xanders has actually done his job pretty well. . . our rookie deals have been negotiated with a minimum of fuss, we signed kuper to a very favorable deal, the orton extension looks like a blessing, doom's negotiations were handled pretty professionally given the context of the uncapped year, and we got good returns in the cutler and marshall trades. . .

firing xanders isn't going to fix the defense or get mcdaniels to run the ball more. . . we need a solution, not a fall guy. . .

[Jake Klug]

Well, I think Bowlen is feeling the pressure that's why I think there were two different statements released. Bowlen and his family only own the controlling stock of the franchise, 39.2 percent is owned by private investors. And he can not sell the majority stock, because Kaiser the former owner and one of those same said investors has first right to buy the controlling stock. The Board of Directors are probably applying pressure in light of it all, the fourth quarter reports are coming in and sales are on a downward slope, that's cause for concern. If he keeps McDaniels, then does he start losing seat attendance? The fans have a much louder voice and say then some believe in the matters, after all...sports go hand in hand with city and league politics, and unhappy fans can make issues for organizations.

Personally I think that Bowlen has no choice but to make either several moves around him, placing coaches on the staff he feels capable and a solid G.M. in place, or he'll just fire McDaniels outright.

I think Bowlen really intends to bring Josh back and they only released the second statement because they knew it would impact them financially. So, they realized theyd be better off financially to string people along even though Pat has every intention of bringing McDaniels back.

These are dark days. Bowlen has had every excuse to fire him by now.

[silkamilkamonico]

I think Bowlen really intends to bring Josh back and they only released the second statement because they knew it would impact them financially. So, they realized theyd be better off financially to string people along even though Pat has every intention of bringing McDaniels back.

These are dark days. Bowlen has had every excuse to fire him by now.

I actually agree with this. It was like his first statement was his heart talking, and then the PR department explained to him that the state of the franchise right now isn't good and the fanbase is unhappy and he would be foolish to not release another statement saying they were concerned with the organization and keeping an eye on what's happening.

Unfortunately, I still think unless there's some blowout week after week collapse McDaniels is still here next year.

[Jake Klug]

I actually agree with this. It was like his first statement was his heart talking, and then the PR department explained to him that the state of the franchise right now isn't good and the fanbase is unhappy and he would be foolish to not release another statement saying they were concerned with the organization and keeping an eye on what's happening.

Unfortunately, I still think unless there's some blowout week after week collapse McDaniels is still here next year.

Im not even sure it requires another blowout. I totally expect Pat to pull a fast one.

[Lancane]

I can understand the Aikman comparison, but Brandon Marshall is much more a TO than he ever was a Michael Irvin. I think TO got flat out released more times then he was traded.

True, Owens nor Marshall were ever arrested for snorting coke off a hooker's ass, pistol whipping someone and possibly shooting at that same said person, busted for violating the league's drug policy or for having narcotics in their possession.

Marshall is more like Owens then Irving. :lol:

[underrated29]

I think Bowlen really intends to bring Josh back and they only released the second statement because they knew it would impact them financially. So, they realized theyd be better off financially to string people along even though Pat has every intention of bringing McDaniels back.

These are dark days. Bowlen has had every excuse to fire him by now.

He will be back. we all know it. The Only scenario i see that he will not be is if there is a lockout and then I can see him canning him during the lockout. But really, bowlen is not going to pay for 3 coaching salaries.

We heard about all the fuss that bowlen made when shanny had tons of money in dead cap space that josh had to fix. And about bowlen paying two salaries at the same time...


I just do not see it as a possibility that Josh gets the axe, purely based on financial reasons.

[silkamilkamonico]

True, Owens nor Marshall were ever arrested for snorting coke off a hooker's ass, pistol whipping someone and possibly shooting at that same said person, busted for violating the league's drug policy or for having narcotics in their possession.

Marshall is more like Owens then Irving. :lol:

Who cares about what the gu ydoes personally, Irvin was never a distraction to his teammates during practice and not putting the team over himself.

Picking the ball up and punting it drawing attention of every player during practice when they are focused on trying to improve themselves? Yea, I can see Marshall has every intention on helping his team win, I mean, he has sure helped Miami break through the woodworks. :lol:

[Northman]

I can understand the Aikman comparison, but Brandon Marshall is much more a TO than he ever was a Michael Irvin. I think TO got flat out released more times then he was traded.

Emm, i dont agree. Simply because TO is a headcase for the lockerroom. Irvin and Marshall were known to have off the field issues with drugs and domestic violence. Marshall wasnt traded because he punted a ball in practice. He was traded because the franchise got scared he would screw up off the field. Had the rules applied to Irvin back in the day he would of also been a serious risk but considering Jerry Jones has a lot of patience with guys like that i dont believe Johnson would of ever traded Irvin because of a "what if" senario.

[Lancane]

Who cares about what the gu ydoes personally, Irvin was never a distraction to his teammates during practice and not putting the team over himself.

Picking the ball up and punting it drawing attention of every player during practice when they are focused on trying to improve themselves? Yea, I can see Marshall has every intention on helping his team win, I mean, he has sure helped Miami break through the woodworks. :lol:

Well, when you put it that way...lol. :laugh:

[Buff]

He will be back. we all know it. The Only scenario i see that he will not be is if there is a lockout and then I can see him canning him during the lockout. But really, bowlen is not going to pay for 3 coaching salaries.

We heard about all the fuss that bowlen made when shanny had tons of money in dead cap space that josh had to fix. And about bowlen paying two salaries at the same time...


I just do not see it as a possibility that Josh gets the axe, purely based on financial reasons.

That was my viewpoint last week. I think a lot has changed since then. The fact that Bowlen rescinded his vote of confidence for McDaniels within two hours of it being published is not a good sign for him. I see it as a very real possibility he could get the axe if we don't get to 5 wins.

[silkamilkamonico]

Emm, i dont agree. Simply because TO is a headcase for the lockerroom. Irvin and Marshall were known to have off the field issues with drugs and domestic violence. Marshall wasnt traded because he punted a ball in practice. He was traded because the franchise got scared he would screw up off the field. Had the rules applied to Irvin back in the day he would of also been a serious risk but considering Jerry Jones has a lot of patience with guys like that i dont believe Johnson would of ever traded Irvin because of a "what if" senario.

I look at it simply in terms of being a team player, which Brandon marshall clearly is not, espefially with the antics he's pulling in Miami.

brandon Marshall was traded because he has no intentions of helping a team win, I think that's quite clear.

[silkamilkamonico]

Well, when you put it that way...lol. :laugh:

Completely. i mean, "who cares if I just caught a 15 yard pass and a first down for my team, I'm going to take a 15 yard penalty just so I can throw a little trash in my ex QB's face! It's all about me you know!"

[Jake Klug]

He will be back. we all know it. The Only scenario i see that he will not be is if there is a lockout and then I can see him canning him during the lockout. But really, bowlen is not going to pay for 3 coaching salaries.

We heard about all the fuss that bowlen made when shanny had tons of money in dead cap space that josh had to fix. And about bowlen paying two salaries at the same time...


I just do not see it as a possibility that Josh gets the axe, purely based on financial reasons.

I think its only partly money. You have to remember, its a trade off now. Lost revenue for saving money on salaries. If that wasnt the case, there wouldnt be a need for the second press release. So, there are financial reasons that go both ways.

What this is more indicative of is Pat being stubborn and wanting to give McDaniels a chance to make him look good. Perhaps Pat is to proud to admit he screwed up. And perhaps he actually has disdain towards the fanbase.

I dont think its purely money. If it is purely money then that means Pat doesnt even care about how much the fans spend. The owners most significant revenue stream comes from the tv contract. So maybe Pat is thumbing his nose at the fanbase now that he has the stadium they helped him fund.

[Jake Klug]

That was my viewpoint last week. I think a lot has changed since then. The fact that Bowlen rescinded his vote of confidence for McDaniels within two hours of it being published is not a good sign for him. I see it as a very real possibility he could get the axe if we don't get to 5 wins.

The revised statement is more indicative that they fear lost revenue. No one does a 180 like that within an hour unless theres something else going on.

[arapaho2]

soooo if the broncos win 5 games like the rams theyll be alright in your book? Keep in mind that the rams buccs have been picking in the top 5 for a while now. all of these franchises who have turned it around qucik has had that top draft pick to draft that franchise changing player. buccs got mccoy, talib, falcons got matty ice, rams got bradford, long and many other top 5 draft picks. they all got that franchise chaging player. detroit got suh.....which is why there all ov a sudden headed in the right direction. it is simply the broncos turn to pick high and bring in that high draft pick talent. wish it coulda happend last year. wed have suh..... but this year should make up for all of that with the shit load of Dl talent coming in.

imagine atlanta with no matt ryan, imagine detroit without suh and the attitude he brung there. imagine the buccs without mccoy and freeman, imagine the rams with no bradford :shocked:

im sure there fan bases are looking back and probably glad they sucked. because it landed them a franchise changing players that put there teams back on the map.

the differance is...those teams sucked...void of talent

mcd took over a 8-8 team that had the 2nd overall offense that consisted of 8 starters either rooks or first time starters

8-8 shoulda been the jump spot...the beginning...coaching improvments would dictate an improvment on that 8-8 team

but we have gotten progressevly worse

those teams and new coaches looked at the biggest need...for most a franchise qb...AND TOOK ONE...they looked at other areas and fixed them

they didnt say the biggest need is defense therfore logic dictates i draft offense while shipping off the talent already there...they drafted for need!!!

hence the issue..the offense wasnt the issue defense was...now near the second year we have taken 5 1st round picks and spent four on offense (considering we traded the 14th overall for a defensive player whom we then traded for a 7th round TE)...hello!!!

mcd took the 16th ranked scoreing offense and made it worse....whats even more tragic after two offseasons...two drafts....the area of greatest weakness...say it with me..THE DEFENSE...has gotten still worse and are now the worst scoreing defense in the entire league!!! THE WORST

there isnt a sign of being better...there isnt a glimmer of greatness to come...ALL I SEE IS WE PICKED THE WRONG COACH AND THE SOONER WE GET A COMPETENT REPLACEMENT THE BETTER OFF WE WILL BE

[silkamilkamonico]

the differance is...those teams sucked...void of talent

mcd took over a 8-8 team that had the 2nd overall offense that consisted of 8 starters either rooks or first time starters

8-8 shoulda been the jump spot...the beginning...coaching improvments would dictate an improvment on that 8-8 team

but we have gotten progressevly worse

those teams and new coaches looked at the biggest need...for most a franchise qb...AND TOOK ONE...they looked at other areas and fixed them

they didnt say the biggest need is defense therfore logic dictates i draft offense while shipping off the talent already there...they drafted for need!!!

hence the issue..the offense wasnt the issue defense was...now near the second year we have taken 5 1st round picks and spent four on offense (considering we traded the 14th overall for a defensive player whom we then traded for a 7th round TE)...hello!!!

mcd took the 16th ranked scoreing offense and made it worse....whats even more tragic after two offseasons...two drafts....the area of greatest weakness...say it with me..THE DEFENSE...has gotten still worse and are now the worst scoreing defense in the entire league!!! THE WORST

there isnt a sign of being better...there isnt a glimmer of greatness to come...ALL I SEE IS WE PICKED THE WRONG COACH AND THE SOONER WE GET A COMPETENT REPLACEMENT THE BETTER OFF WE WILL BE

I didn't mind the offensive changes personally because I knew some of those players would not be good in another system, but with the benfit of hindsight, the offense isn't really any better, and it's putting up foughly the same ppg with the same glaring problems that have not been fixed, and the defense that he promised to fix has been just as atrocious.

Not only that but we seem to continue to be on rebuilding mode. At what point is McDaniels planning on building?

IMHO, I don't think the defense is worse than 2008, but I do think there are more glaring questions about where the identity is going than 2008, and that is most definetely a concern.

[Jake Klug]

I didn't mind the offensive changes personally because I knew some of those players would not be good in another system, but with the benfit of hindsight, the offense isn't really any better, and it's putting up foughly the same ppg with the same glaring problems that have not been fixed, and the defense that he promised to fix has been just as atrocious.

Not only that but we seem to continue to be on rebuilding mode. At what point is McDaniels planning on building?

IMHO, I don't think the defense is worse than 2008, but I do think there are more glaring questions about where the identity is going than 2008, and that is most definetely a concern.

The offense is a lot worse. Theres no running game.

[silkamilkamonico]

The offense is a lot worse. Theres no running game.

Hardly a lot worse. The lack of running game has been washed out by the lack of turnovers, and more importantly, turnovers on Denvers side of the field that 2008 seemed to be so good at. The passing game is better, but the ppg is down only .4 from 23.1 in 2008 to 22.7 this year.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

Regardless of what Lombardi thinks he knows about rebuilding or not and whether or not were were/are or whatever. You just can't go 8-8 finishing the previous season 2-8 and then go 3-8 on your way to the worst season in 40 years and call it a rebuild.

A rebuild is taking a team that's 4-12 and going 6-10, then 8-8, then 10-6 and earning a wildcard, then the division. Not 8-8 to 3-8 (potentially 5-11 best case). If McDaniels wanted to tear down the roster and start fresh, he should've done it last year. He waited a year to long if what he's really doing is rebuilding.

BTW, he's not rebuilding, he's embarrassing this team, the owner, and himself by continuously showing his ineptitude at pretty much every facet of his job. He wouldn't admit rebuilding even if he was because Bowlen didn't hire him to rebuild anything and his pride wouldn't let him admit it anyway.

I honestly think that McDaniels wakes up every morning wishing this season was just a bad dream. He won't resign because he has too much pride and arrogance, but you'll never convince me that he likes his job, the Broncos organization, the players (other than maybe Lloyd - his diamond in the rough), or Bowlen. He comes to work because it's what he's paid to do, but he really just seems to be going through the motions now. He does it, so the players do it. Hence we're not winning and we won't with him onboard.

You know what the most telling thing right now is? Who does the media look to for comment? Dawkins? Bailey? Nah, the guys they talk to are the one who are young, impressionable, and fighting for a job. Lloyd, Bruton, Royal. I don't think we as fans really want to hear what Dawkins and Champ are really thinking right now...

[atwater27]

The franchise is already set back. And again, other organizations have turned it around in a year so its a lot of hot air honestly. This isnt the 60's.

3rd post of the thread should have been the final one... I'm done with this regime.

[Tned]

If McDaniels wanted to tear down the roster and start fresh, he should've done it last year. He waited a year to long if what he's really doing is rebuilding.


He did do it last year. It just wasn't as clearly reflected in the first six games due to a combination of great play by the defense and lucky breaks (immaculate deflection, Marshall's big catch at the end against Dallas, etc.)

[Medford Bronco]

why would it set it back. Isnt 5-21 bad enough and not winning games at home
and being very undisciplined.

Bring in a real coach like Gruden or Cowher and then lets see if they go 5-21 over a 26 game span.

Also McD has embarassed the Broncos. That is the worst of it. He is cluess when drafting. He might be okay if he has the right players but I think this team is too fractured right now.

[Medford Bronco]

Lombardi is a tool who likes for people to think he's a Broncos "insider."

I remember at the end of the 2008 season he went on TV the night after the Broncos lost to the Chargers and said that "Shanny isn't going anywhere."

:coffee:

He was a real Nostradamus :lol:

[Medford Bronco]

let's cut to the chase. . .

is this guy any relative of vince, or not?

The only time he is close to the Lombadi trophy is when he goes to see it at the Football HOF game in August when covering it for the NFL Network

He sucks

[claymore]

Josh is a known fail. Id rather gamble on the next guy. He could blow this team up and we wouldnt be set back.

[Tned]

Josh is a known fail. Id rather gamble on the next guy. He could blow this team up and we wouldnt be set back.

All he did was pick up the phone and say no...

[claymore]

All he did was pick up the phone and say no...

Yeah right. That SOB got to smackin his lips and trading like a used car salesman.

He is the Anti Bronco. Im going to tell my grand kids about him.

[Medford Bronco]

Yeah right. That SOB got to smackin his lips and trading like a used car salesman.

He is the Anti Bronco. Im going to tell my grand kids about him.

Clay you were right on him. i hate the guy with a passion right now.

I dont even get excited over Bronco games now. I am glad I am in a pool so I watch any football game but the few times they are on tv for me they suck.

I want him gone. I hope he gets so fired after the season right now. He is horrible and there is no defense for him after the throwing of the assistants under the bus with the Spygate II crap. He has an undisiplined team that looks lost right now. wE have no identity right now. So sad really

[Jake Klug]

Clay you were right on him. i hate the guy with a passion right now.

I dont even get excited over Bronco games now. I am glad I am in a pool so I watch any football game but the few times they are on tv for me they suck.

I want him gone. I hope he gets so fired after the season right now. He is horrible and there is no defense for him after the throwing of the assistants under the bus with the Spygate II crap. He has an undisiplined team that looks lost right now. wE have no identity right now. So sad really

Is now not a good time to tell you Bowlen will probably bring him back in 2011?

[chazoe60]

I don't see how clotting the bleeding is considered "setting the franchise back" It's like saying stopping to put air in a low tire is a bad idea because it will cause you to be late to work. How much later will you be when the tire goes completely flat and you're stuck on the interstate.

[Medford Bronco]

Is now not a good time to tell you Bowlen will probably bring him back in 2011?

It makes me even less excited about the Broncos. Like a rudderless ship really.

Pat please fire him. He is a bum and very arrogant with not a resume to back it up.

[dogfish]

I don't see how clotting the bleeding is considered "setting the franchise back" It's like saying stopping to put air in a low tire is a bad idea because it will cause you to be late to work. How much later will you be when the tire goes completely flat and you're stuck on the interstate.

LMAO

let's see who can make the worst analogy-- may as well laugh about it. . .

continuing to employ mcdaniels based on fear of setting the franchise back is like noticing that your pants are on fire and deciding to let it burn itself out. . .

[Medford Bronco]

LMAO

let's see who can make the worst analogy-- may as well laugh about it. . .

continuing to employ mcdaniels based on fear of setting the franchise back is like noticing that your pants are on fire and deciding to let it burn itself out. . .

or put gas on it as it might burn out quicker :flame: :target: :lol:

[Jake Klug]

LMAO

let's see who can make the worst analogy-- may as well laugh about it. . .

continuing to employ mcdaniels based on fear of setting the franchise back is like noticing that your pants are on fire and deciding to let it burn itself out. . .

Its like postponing amputating your foot so that it can spread to your knee.

[TXBRONC]

I don't see how clotting the bleeding is considered "setting the franchise back" It's like saying stopping to put air in a low tire is a bad idea because it will cause you to be late to work. How much later will you be when the tire goes completely flat and you're stuck on the interstate.


LMAO

let's see who can make the worst analogy-- may as well laugh about it. . .

continuing to employ mcdaniels based on fear of setting the franchise back is like noticing that your pants are on fire and deciding to let it burn itself out. . .


or put gas on it as it might burn out quicker :flame: :target: :lol:


Its like postponing amputating your foot so that it can spread to your knee.

Let me try my hand at this.

It's like pissing in the wind because you're afraid to change direction.

[EMB6903]

The franchise is already set back. And again, other organizations have turned it around in a year so its a lot of hot air honestly. This isnt the 60's.

And what teams are that?

90% of this team has been changed in less then 2 years... thats a lot of rebuilding.

[Jake Klug]

And what teams are that?

90% of this team has been changed in less then 2 years... thats a lot of rebuilding.

No, its a lot of destruction.

[underrated29]

No, its a lot of destruction.



No its like pooping with only an evergreen to wipe with.

[Jake Klug]

No its like pooping with only an evergreen to wipe with.

Good luck with that.

[underrated29]

Good luck with that.

Its part of the worst anology joke thing going on inside this thread. I think I might be in the lead, or close to it.

[chazoe60]

Its part of the worst anology joke thing going on inside this thread. I think I might be in the lead, or close to it.

I think I'm still winning. Or losing, as it were.

[nevcraw]

And what teams are that?

90% of this team has been changed in less then 2 years... thats a lot of rebuilding.

who's fault is that?

[jhildebrand]

I don't disagree with your post, but I;m looking at our team makeup.

We have absolutely no building blocks along the defense, with the exception of 2 young OLB's. Nowhere else IMO. KC at least has had building blocks with good young talent on defense, and they are now starting to see improvements after how many years?

I have seen nothing to make me think this defense is ever going to be good. Not with the players on it.

Under a new coach, who's our QB? Orton? I don't know.. Tebow? I don't know. Somebody else?

IMHO, there isn't a team in the NFL worse off than Denver is with a coaching change. And to make matters worse, I certainly do not feel like McDaniels will change it around.

BTW, this will be the 5th consecutive season with no playoffs, and to ad dmore doom and gloom we are worse off now then we were 2-3 years ago.

KC has been bad for some time. SD was bad before Rivers for some time. Oakland has been bad for some time. Now is the time, IMHO, with everything considered, that Denver will be the bad team for some time.

I don't disagree with you at all Silk. But McDaniels doesn't get a free pass on the D. We have had plenty of picks and some of them high to mid first round picks. To this day I don't get why he didn't go heavy and often on the D in the draft. Coming from NE I would think he would understand the importance of Vince Wilfork and Seymour to that D. I think he would understand that they built their D there from the ground up. KC turned it around by drafting D players and playing them.

In the end, if we can't trus the guy's personnel decisions and if Bowlen doesn't work a real GM in then I hope McD gets fired. He is Matt Millen-ing this team. Maybe we can take another 1st round WR or offensive player again in the draft :sick:

I don't blame all of this on McD either. Shanahan gets his share. He continually tried to build the D through FA and he missed on his share of trades.

I guess I just hold out hope that a team can slide to terrible in a couple of years and some can rebuild in a couple. Let's hope this team can rebuild quickly.

[Buff]

I don't disagree with you at all Silk. But McDaniels doesn't get a free pass on the D. We have had plenty of picks and some of them high to mid first round picks. To this day I don't get why he didn't go heavy and often on the D in the draft. Coming from NE I would think he would understand the importance of Vince Wilfork and Seymour to that D. I think he would understand that they built their D there from the ground up. KC turned it around by drafting D players and playing them.

In the end, if we can't trus the guy's personnel decisions and if Bowlen doesn't work a real GM in then I hope McD gets fired. He is Matt Millen-ing this team. Maybe we can take another 1st round WR or offensive player again in the draft :sick:

I don't blame all of this on McD either. Shanahan gets his share. He continually tried to build the D through FA and he missed on his share of trades.

I guess I just hold out hope that a team can slide to terrible in a couple of years and some can rebuild in a couple. Let's hope this team can rebuild quickly.

I think everyone would agree that we would have preferred to see the defense get rebuilt early in the draft, starting with the Knowshon pick... But, to be fair, there weren't a lot of front seven guys out there to be had with our selections in the first round... That's not to say McD and Xanders couldn't have worked it better to bring in more defensive talent throughout the draft, because they could have... But there definitely weren't any Vince Wilforks or Richard Seymour's to be had outside of the top 10 picks these last couple of years.

Obviously nabbing a Clay Matthews or someone along those lines would have been nice. But there were 25 other teams who passed on him as well. I wouldn't go as far as saying he's Matt Millen'ing the team... There weren't any no-brainer picks out there that we totally whiffed on.

[jhildebrand]

I think everyone would agree that we would have preferred to see the defense get rebuilt early in the draft, starting with the Knowshon pick... But, to be fair, there weren't a lot of front seven guys out there to be had with our selections in the first round... That's not to say McD and Xanders couldn't have worked it better to bring in more defensive talent throughout the draft, because they could have... But there definitely weren't any Vince Wilforks or Richard Seymour's to be had outside of the top 10 picks these last couple of years.

Obviously nabbing a Clay Matthews or someone along those lines would have been nice. But there were 25 other teams who passed on him as well. I wouldn't go as far as saying he's Matt Millen'ing the team... There weren't any no-brainer picks out there that we totally whiffed on.

I guess I disagree. I see Orakpo at 12 and Zigi Hood at 18. Hood will is quickly becoming a beast in Pittsburgh.

Shoot, if the love affair with Ayers is strong make it Ayers and Hood. Then get yourself Maualuga in the second or third.


Oh that reminds me. BJ RAJI. For all McD gave up on the R Quinn's, Alphonso Smith's, Brandstaters, Tebows, etc... in the draft I would MUCH rather have seen him make a move for Raji. Even if Raji fell flat on his face here I would be much more forgiving and less critical of McDaniels.

There has been plenty of talent for the front 7 in these past two drafts.

[Lancane]

I think everyone would agree that we would have preferred to see the defense get rebuilt early in the draft, starting with the Knowshon pick... But, to be fair, there weren't a lot of front seven guys out there to be had with our selections in the first round... That's not to say McD and Xanders couldn't have worked it better to bring in more defensive talent throughout the draft, because they could have... But there definitely weren't any Vince Wilforks or Richard Seymour's to be had outside of the top 10 picks these last couple of years.

Anyone with common sense could have drafted better, Moreno was a good fit for the zone blocking scheme, and any evaluator of talent could have explained that to them, he's useless in the new system; right there we could have taken Orakpo, Cushing or English, anyone of those three would have been a better choice...especially when you see us taking Ayers, he's a true 4-3 defensive end, the stats prove as much, as a linebacker he's been questionable at best, and is more effective when we utilize him in 4-3 stints. Peria or Matthews would have been better picks at the spot, especially Matthews. If we'd had taken Orakpo and Matthews, we'd have one of the better looking linebacker corps. - Orakpo, Williams, Matthews and Dumervil!

The second round is just as questionable, the trade that netted Smith made sense if we were going after Maualuga or Brace, especially Brace. We'd not be in the mess we are now needing a young nose tackle, we'd not be settled on Williams' old ass. McBath was understandable, but there were several lineman available at that spot that would have helped. So even beyond the Cutler fiasco, they had the opportunity to really fix the defense and all but one of those defensive picks was questionable. Matthews, Orakpo, Brace and possibly Moala for example with our free agents and other defensive players, that would have gone a long way into fixing the front seven problem.

He didn't just whiff Buff, Thomas over Bryant is a perfect example of how they believe that value is in personality not talent. As of now he looks to be what some feared he'd be, an injury prone player who doesn't transition well in the NFL, and only time will tell, but damn buff. If he'd have just come in and kept the offense mainly intact, we'd not be in this mess.

[Jake Klug]

Anyone with common sense could have drafted better, Moreno was a good fit for the zone blocking scheme, and any evaluator of talent could have explained that to them, he's useless in the new system; right there we could have taken Orakpo, Cushing or English, anyone of those three would have been a better choice...especially when you see us taking Ayers, he's a true 4-3 defensive end, the stats prove as much, as a linebacker he's been questionable at best, and is more effective when we utilize him in 4-3 stints. Peria or Matthews would have been better picks at the spot, especially Matthews. If we'd had taken Orakpo and Matthews, we'd have one of the better looking linebacker corps. - Orakpo, Williams, Matthews and Dumervil!

The second round is just as questionable, the trade that netted Smith made sense if we were going after Maualuga or Brace, especially Brace. We'd not be in the mess we are now needing a young nose tackle, we'd not be settled on Williams' old ass. McBath was understandable, but there were several lineman available at that spot that would have helped. So even beyond the Cutler fiasco, they had the opportunity to really fix the defense and all but one of those defensive picks was questionable. Matthews, Orakpo, Brace and possibly Moala for example with our free agents and other defensive players, that would have gone a long way into fixing the front seven problem.
He didn't just whiff Buff, Thomas over Bryant is a perfect example of how they believe that value is in personality not talent. As of now he looks to be what some feared he'd be, an injury prone player who doesn't transition well in the NFL, and only time will tell, but damn buff. If he'd have just come in and kept the offense mainly intact, we'd not be in this mess.

Or, if youre going to trade for Alfonso Smith, it might make more sense to rethink that and trade up for Raji. But regardless, they had plenty of chances and have also have established theyre not reluctant to move round the board. But its for S, TE, CB, WR, and QB. Where is the front 7 in that?

[dogfish]

I think everyone would agree that we would have preferred to see the defense get rebuilt early in the draft, starting with the Knowshon pick... But, to be fair, there weren't a lot of front seven guys out there to be had with our selections in the first round... That's not to say McD and Xanders couldn't have worked it better to bring in more defensive talent throughout the draft, because they could have... But there definitely weren't any Vince Wilforks or Richard Seymour's to be had outside of the top 10 picks these last couple of years.

Obviously nabbing a Clay Matthews or someone along those lines would have been nice. But there were 25 other teams who passed on him as well. I wouldn't go as far as saying he's Matt Millen'ing the team... There weren't any no-brainer picks out there that we totally whiffed on.

to be fair, he's had two chances-- and we didn't come away with a lamarr houston, jared odrick, terrence cody, dan williams, etc this year either. . . or even mike iupati as a true power-blocking OL, for that matter. . .

you can talk about being a bigger, tougher, more physical team all you want, but when you spend most of your high picks on offensive skill position players, your drafting doesn't really look to be in synch with your espoused approach. . . knowwhati'msayin?

[Buff]

I guess I disagree. I see Orakpo at 12 and Zigi Hood at 18. Hood will is quickly becoming a beast in Pittsburgh.

Shoot, if the love affair with Ayers is strong make it Ayers and Hood. Then get yourself Maualuga in the second or third.


Oh that reminds me. BJ RAJI. For all McD gave up on the R Quinn's, Alphonso Smith's, Brandstaters, Tebows, etc... in the draft I would MUCH rather have seen him make a move for Raji. Even if Raji fell flat on his face here I would be much more forgiving and less critical of McDaniels.

There has been plenty of talent for the front 7 in these past two drafts.

Raji is one of the guys I'm talking about... Of course we wanted him. He was gone.

I would have preferred Orakpo to Knowshon as well, but he's pretty much the only player who made sense around where we were picking. Hood has yet to make an impact for Pitt and just cracked the starting lineup due to an injury.

I'm talking about 1st round talent that was available to us. Really, I'm not disagreeing with you that we should have done more to acquire defense, just saying that it's kind of revisionist history to imply that we were whiffing on defensive talent left and right the last two years. Of course we want to find the next Richard Seymour, but he wasn't out there to be had.

[Buff]

Anyone with common sense could have drafted better, Moreno was a good fit for the zone blocking scheme, and any evaluator of talent could have explained that to them, he's useless in the new system; right there we could have taken Orakpo, Cushing or English, anyone of those three would have been a better choice...especially when you see us taking Ayers, he's a true 4-3 defensive end, the stats prove as much, as a linebacker he's been questionable at best, and is more effective when we utilize him in 4-3 stints. Peria or Matthews would have been better picks at the spot, especially Matthews. If we'd had taken Orakpo and Matthews, we'd have one of the better looking linebacker corps. - Orakpo, Williams, Matthews and Dumervil!

The second round is just as questionable, the trade that netted Smith made sense if we were going after Maualuga or Brace, especially Brace. We'd not be in the mess we are now needing a young nose tackle, we'd not be settled on Williams' old ass. McBath was understandable, but there were several lineman available at that spot that would have helped. So even beyond the Cutler fiasco, they had the opportunity to really fix the defense and all but one of those defensive picks was questionable. Matthews, Orakpo, Brace and possibly Moala for example with our free agents and other defensive players, that would have gone a long way into fixing the front seven problem.

He didn't just whiff Buff, Thomas over Bryant is a perfect example of how they believe that value is in personality not talent. As of now he looks to be what some feared he'd be, an injury prone player who doesn't transition well in the NFL, and only time will tell, but damn buff. If he'd have just come in and kept the offense mainly intact, we'd not be in this mess.

I agree with you more than I disagree... I just think that A.) we're playing the 20/20 hindsight draft game here and B.) We're overstating the talent that was available around our slots. It's not like moving up or down the board to any draft slot is easy.

Of course Matthews would have been a better pick, but 25 teams passed on him in the 1st round. Jerry projected as a 4-3 lineman. I'd take Brace over Smith obviously, but he's gotten off to a disappointing start in New England.

Not even necessarily defending Josh's drafts... I just don't see a ton of defensive talent that was available to us tearing it up for other teams. There are a few exceptions, like Matthews, but it's not like he was a no-brainer/can't miss prospect or more teams would have jumped on him.

[Tned]

I agree with you more than I disagree... I just think that A.) we're playing the 20/20 hindsight draft game here and B.) We're overstating the talent that was available around our slots. It's not like moving up or down the board to any draft slot is easy.

Of course Matthews would have been a better pick, but 25 teams passed on him in the 1st round. Jerry projected as a 4-3 lineman. I'd take Brace over Smith obviously, but he's gotten off to a disappointing start in New England.

Not even necessarily defending Josh's drafts... I just don't see a ton of defensive talent that was available to us tearing it up for other teams. There are a few exceptions, like Matthews, but it's not like he was a no-brainer/can't miss prospect or more teams would have jumped on him.

Most of the mock drafts (not on here, the ones on the major websites and what was being discussed by the talking heads) had us taking an OLB (or other defensive player) and RB in the first round. Most had us taking someone like Orakpo with the first pick and Beanie wells or Moreno with the second first round pick.

As much as we look at what Hillis is doing now and saying, "how could he have picked an RB", but the fact is that with all the injuries and mediocre backs used in '08, it was expected by most that Denver would pick an RB fairly early in the draft.

[Canmore]

Most of the mock drafts (not on here, the ones on the major websites and what was being discussed by the talking heads) had us taking an OLB (or other defensive player) and RB in the first round. Most had us taking someone like Orakpo with the first pick and Beanie wells or Moreno with the second first round pick.

As much as we look at what Hillis is doing now and saying, "how could he have picked an RB", but the fact is that with all the injuries and mediocre backs used in '08, it was expected by most that Denver would pick an RB fairly early in the draft.

Too bad Moreno hasn't produced like we hoped he would. Although his last couple of games have been much improved. More than anything he needs to stay healthy.

[Tned]

Too bad Moreno hasn't produced like we hoped he would. Although his last couple of games have been much improved. More than anything he needs to stay healthy.

Agreed. I was just pointing out that even being a big Hilis fan, it was easy to see why he would think we needed RB help, most did. That said, I know there are a lot of different opinions about whether or not you should draft an RB in the early part of the first round, and whether Moreno was worth that pick. I'm not enough of an NCAA/draft fan to know how highly regarded Moreno was at the time.

[Canmore]

Agreed. I was just pointing out that even being a big Hilis fan, it was easy to see why he would think we needed RB help, most did. That said, I know there are a lot of different opinions about whether or not you should draft an RB in the early part of the first round, and whether Moreno was worth that pick. I'm not enough of an NCAA/draft fan to know how highly regarded Moreno was at the time.

IIRC Moreno was rated the top back in the draft by consensus. I'm not a college or draft guy either.

[Dzone]

Hearing things like he took his entire coaching before the owner to give then a verbal dressing down and rumors that screaming at people wanting to know who turned him in doesn't do much build a reputation for being likable .
No kidding. He really is lacking in simple basic people skills. Makes you wonder how he got as far as he has. Maybe he was just a good brown noser.

[Tned]

IIRC Moreno was rated the top back in the draft by consensus. I'm not a college or draft guy either.

That's my recollection as well, with Beanie Wells being second.

I have heard Broncos fans say he wasn't enough of an impact RB to be taken 12th, but I'm not sure if that was a given at the time, or a hindsight thing.

[Canmore]

That's my recollection as well, with Beanie Wells being second.

I have heard Broncos fans say he wasn't enough of an impact RB to be taken 12th, but I'm not sure if that was a given at the time, or a hindsight thing.

Hindsight is always 20/20.:D

[Nomad]

Moreno was awesome to watch in college and a pain to watch when the Dawgs played LSU! JMO and listening to talking heads after the draft, McDaniels pulled the trigger on Moreno early because he didn't want the possibility of SD getting him....Redskins sent him a thank you card:D!! :whoknows:I wonder what he'd be doing to our defense right now if that was the case!!

[TXBRONC]

I think everyone would agree that we would have preferred to see the defense get rebuilt early in the draft, starting with the Knowshon pick... But, to be fair, there weren't a lot of front seven guys out there to be had with our selections in the first round... That's not to say McD and Xanders couldn't have worked it better to bring in more defensive talent throughout the draft, because they could have... But there definitely weren't any Vince Wilforks or Richard Seymour's to be had outside of the top 10 picks these last couple of years.

Obviously nabbing a Clay Matthews or someone along those lines would have been nice. But there were 25 other teams who passed on him as well. I wouldn't go as far as saying he's Matt Millen'ing the team... There weren't any no-brainer picks out there that we totally whiffed on.

I have never had a problem with Moreno given that Raji was the best nose tackle in Moreno's draft class however, Ron Brace was available and every analysis I saw that one Brace could go anywhere from about the lower end of the first round and into the second. While Brace doesn't have Raji's explosiveness many think he can develop into a solid nose tackle in his own right. While we couldn't have had Raji we could have had a guy Brace that was in what I think top 5 or 10 defensive tackles that draft.

In two drafts we passed on several guys that could possible develop into solid nose tackles and we passed every last one of them so I respectfully disagree with you. We did whiff big time.

[Northman]

I have never had a problem with Moreno given that Raji was the best nose tackle in Moreno's draft class however, Ron Brace was available and every analysis I saw that one Brace could go anywhere from about the lower end of the first round and into the second. While Brace doesn't have Raji's explosiveness many think he can develop into a solid nose tackle in his own right. While couldn't have had Raji we could have had a guy that was in what I think top 5 or 10 defensive tackles that draft.

In two drafts we passed on several guys that could possible develop into solid nose tackles and we passed every last one of them so I respectfully disagree with you. We did whiff big time.

I just find it funny that a lot of players in these last two drafts that i personally (and i know a few others) thought could help this team more we passd on and to add further insult to injury ended up in New England.

[TXBRONC]

I just find it funny that a lot of players in these last two drafts that i personally (and i know a few others) thought could help this team more we passd on and to add further insult to injury ended up in New England.

Exactly. What did we do we went out and picked up a college free agent nose tackle who have even less of chance of sticking with a team than a draft pick.

[Jake Klug]

I have never had a problem with Moreno given that Raji was the best nose tackle in Moreno's draft class however, Ron Brace was available and every analysis I saw that one Brace could go anywhere from about the lower end of the first round and into the second. While Brace doesn't have Raji's explosiveness many think he can develop into a solid nose tackle in his own right. While we couldn't have had Raji we could have had a guy Brace that was in what I think top 5 or 10 defensive tackles that draft.

In two drafts we passed on several guys that could possible develop into solid nose tackles and we passed every last one of them so I respectfully disagree with you. We did whiff big time.

Ive seen someone say before that we couldnt have had Raji. When you look at how much moving up and down the board this regime has done for positions like S, TE, WR, QB and CB (notice no front 7), I dont really see how you can say the idea of trading up only a few spots for the best DT in the draft is so undoable.

But also like you said, when they traded a 1st for a 2nd, I thought they were going to take Maualuga or Brace.

[TXBRONC]

Ive seen someone say before that we couldnt have had Raji. When you look at how much moving up and down the board this regime has done for positions like S, TE, WR, QB and CB (notice no front 7), I dont really see how you can say the idea of trading up only a few spots for the best DT in the draft is so undoable.

But also like you said, when they traded a 1st for a 2nd, I thought they were going to take Maualuga or Brace.

From what I understand the Packers were absolutely unwilling to move because Raji was their guy and to get above them would have gotten pretty expensive. Nevertheless taking a Ron Brace imho is still a lot better than doing nothing at all.

[Jake Klug]

From what I understand the Packers were absolutely unwilling to move because Raji was their guy and to get above them would have gotten pretty expensive. Nevertheless taking a Ron Brace imho is still a lot better than doing nothing at all.

Would have gotten expensive? Like all the other times they moved around the board wasnt expensive? Seriously, how was moving into the 2nd by trading a first for Smith not expensive?

And really, how expensive has it been to not get a capable NT?

[jhildebrand]

Raji is one of the guys I'm talking about... Of course we wanted him. He was gone.

I would have preferred Orakpo to Knowshon as well, but he's pretty much the only player who made sense around where we were picking. Hood has yet to make an impact for Pitt and just cracked the starting lineup due to an injury.

I'm talking about 1st round talent that was available to us. Really, I'm not disagreeing with you that we should have done more to acquire defense, just saying that it's kind of revisionist history to imply that we were whiffing on defensive talent left and right the last two years. Of course we want to find the next Richard Seymour, but he wasn't out there to be had.

Why are we talking solely about guys available to us? Tebow wasn't until McDaniels traded to get back into the first round. Smith wasn't until he traded away a first. My point was and still is as much as McDaniels has shown he is comfortable moving around in the draft, a very stron point in his favor by the way, I am certain he could have moved above GB had he wanted to.

At some point you draft best player available basded on need or you just go after need. Knowshon possibly going to the Chargers had as much to do with McDaniels drafting him as anything else.

I think some of these coaches and FO types have made it too complicated and or fear what the fan response will be to drafting. However there are still a few who draft how they see fit and have conviction in that i.e. Thompson, AJ Smith, etc...

[HORSEPOWER 56]

He did do it last year. It just wasn't as clearly reflected in the first six games due to a combination of great play by the defense and lucky breaks (immaculate deflection, Marshall's big catch at the end against Dallas, etc.)

Not really. Okay he traded Cutler and threw away some defensive scrubs. Let's look at the guys that he shit canned after his first season...

-Marshall
-Hillis
-Scheffler
-Weigmann
-Hamilton

He also attempted to completely rebuild the starting defensive line with other team's washed up old timers or career backups.

I'd say that's an awful lot of change for one offseason and it's been reflected that both units are awful this year.

[Tned]

Not really. Okay he traded Cutler and threw away some defensive scrubs. Let's look at the guys that he shit canned after his first season...

-Marshall
-Hillis
-Scheffler
-Weigmann
-Hamilton

He also attempted to completely rebuild the starting defensive line with other team's washed up old timers or career backups.

I'd say that's an awful lot of change for one offseason and it's been reflected that both units are awful this year.

Not really.


First, the Marshall die was cast in the offseason, even if the trade didn't happen until this season.
Beyond that, Hillis was traded this season, but unused last season, so again, that die was case in the first offseason.
Scheffler, who I would like to have had on the team, is questionable as to what impact his loss really had. Of the high profile moves, his is the least impactful.
Wiegman and Hamilton: Most fans were talking about how bad they were last year. Hamilton got benched, and few fans were coming to his defense.

[JDL]

Not really.


First, the Marshall die was cast in the offseason, even if the trade didn't happen until this season.
Beyond that, Hillis was traded this season, but unused last season, so again, that die was case in the first offseason.
Scheffler, who I would like to have had on the team, is questionable as to what impact his loss really had. Of the high profile moves, his is the least impactful.
Wiegman and Hamilton: Most fans were talking about how bad they were last year. Hamilton got benched, and few fans were coming to his defense.


Question is if you take over an OL generally regarded as one of the top young OL in pro football (in 2008 they were widely considered top 5), and then a Pro Bowl center goes from being outstanding to bad and then changes teams and goes back to being really good... what does that say about the change blocking scheme? If a scheme makes pro bowl players mediocre... why in the world would you want to install it? It isn't like KC is a finesse team so it isn't style as much as it is substance of scheme.

The OL coaching and scheme to this point has been atrocious and done very little with a lot more talent than most teams in the league.

[arapaho2]

Keeping josh because your afraid to start over........is like wip

ing your ass before u shit....it doesn't make sense

[Cugel]

I asked this question the other day, and no one can answer the question...

Name a head coach (of the modern era) that has had a worse record in his first two seasons, to actually get a third season and has gone on to be a good, even stellar coach?

The answer? Not one...those who've had similar records as McDaniels that have entered a third year, remain mediocre. Among active coaches today, not one of them, that has earned any prestige have caused such a ruckus in regards to off-season moves nor not shown progress in their second season. Those that did not improve and got a third season, continued to be inconsistent and mediocre. So what if we give him another season and he sets us back even more? Then I guess it's worth it...because of the chance possibility he can succeed where others failed? Even though as of yet he's still not shown any real signs of progress!

Pretty much sums it up! :coffee:

Basically Denver is in the situation normally faced only by the Lions, Browns, Bengals, Rams, Bills and other consistent bottom-feeder teams.


Step 1: Hire a coach who comes in and sweeps out the trash. Gets in all new players, and creates a new system. Perhaps drafts a new "QB of the future."

Step 2: Team tanks 1st season, but management says "be patient!" it takes time to rebuild.

Step 3: Little improvement year two. Team may even regress in some areas. QB seems to be a bust. Fan uproar. "Fire the coach!" Management says: "We understand the fan disappointment which we share. But, we need to be consistent and give the system a decent chance to work."

Step 4: Third verse. Same as the first. Team tanks again in year 3. Fans howl for blood all season long, start wearing bags over their heads and things like that.

Step 5: Owner is forced to fire the coach and/or GM at the end of year 3 and start over.

Step 6: Rinse and repeat: back to step 1.

The difference is that McDaniels didn't inherit the Lions with a long history of losing and very little talent. He inherited a team that needed a rebuilt defense to be a top playoff contender.

Instead he totally demolished everything, shipped all the good players left over from the previous regime and watched the team totally self-destruct over the last 23 games.

THAT's MORE THAN LONG ENOUGH! Nearly 2 full seasons of failure since week 7 of 2009 is ENOUGH!

Lombardi might well be true that Pat Bowlen set McDaniels up for failure by failing to give him a strong, experienced GM with total control over player personnel decisions. But, that's water under the bridge now.

The fact remains, will McDaniels actually get BETTER over the next 5 months at evaluating talent and getting everybody on board to succeed in his system?

Obviously he doesn't have the experience that Shanahan had when he came here. Bowlen simply jumped the gun.

He foolishly became convinced this guy with zero previous head-coaching experience should be given total control over the entire organization.

Well, it was a disaster. Now sweep out the rubbish and start over with a REAL GM with REAL POWER over player personnel decisions. Then find a coach who will just coach.

DON'T go looking for a "savior" like Jon Gruden or Bill Cowher or Tony Dungy -- who will want total control. That's been the problem in Denver for far too long!

The job of coach AND General Manager is just too big for any one man. Find a couple of guys who can work together and start with the GM this time.

Its already starting to work in Kansas City where they are slowly assembling a talented bunch of players.

[underrated29]

.

Its already starting to work in Kansas City where they are slowly assembling a talented bunch of players.



I take issue with this part. I think it is and maybe not intentionally either cuges, being severley understated!

Slowly, more like mollases.


They have first round picks everywhere, most are top 10...these are the ones I know of off memmory and I dont know the chefs very well.

bowe, tyjax, dorsey, hali, derrick johnson, eric berry, brandon flowers, and I think there is a player or two on the Oline as well.....

Like I said most of these guys are top 10 picks... tyson, dorsey, hali and berry all were. I think maybe even top 5..........

So sure things are now starting to work for KC, but its been like 10 YEARS of shit shoveling before they are finally coming out of the cellar. I do not want to wait another 7 years.

[Bosco]

Question is if you take over an OL generally regarded as one of the top young OL in pro football (in 2008 they were widely considered top 5), and then a Pro Bowl center goes from being outstanding to bad and then changes teams and goes back to being really good... what does that say about the change blocking scheme? If a scheme makes pro bowl players mediocre... why in the world would you want to install it? It isn't like KC is a finesse team so it isn't style as much as it is substance of scheme.

The OL coaching and scheme to this point has been atrocious and done very little with a lot more talent than most teams in the league.

Casey Wiegmann had played in power blocking schemes for almost his whole career until coming to Denver, and now again after leaving Denver. There was no reason to believe that the change would adversely affect him, especially since Clady, Kuper and Harris transitioned very well. He also didn't go "back to being really good". His play this year could best be described as average. That's an improvement over 2009, but not nearly what it was in 2008 or some of his earlier years.