Kiszla: McD just the scapegoat

[Denver Native (Carol)]

Kisla makes some good points in this article:


Josh McDaniels got canned from one of the worst coaching jobs in the NFL. Can anybody win in Denver? The blame for the sorry state of the Broncos begins with owner Pat Bowlen, who allowed his proud franchise to fall into disrepair.


McDaniels was sacrificed Monday as the scapegoat for a team that has dropped 17 of its last 22 games and lost the faith of a city that worships pro football.


But is Bowlen the real problem?

http://www.denverpost.com/kiszla/ci_16795158 - rest of article - many good points in it

[T.K.O.]

help us Obi-wan Ken-Elway.....your our only hope !
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0b/Ben_Kenobi.jpg

[HORSEPOWER 56]

So when McDaniels took over and we were one of the most "coveted" franchises to work for with one of the best owners in the league all that magically changed because of Bowlen in a year and a half?

I keep hearing we "set McDaniels up to fail" and it's Bowlen's fault because he gave McDaniels "too much power"... WHAT!?!?!?!?!?!?!

That's like blaming the DMV for giving an 18 year old a drivers license, even when he earned the license, when said 18 year old crashes into a school bus full of kids because he was driving recklessly.

McDaniels was a God damned snake oil salesman that wowed Bowlen and Ellis with his Bellichick talk about teamwork and his extensive knowledge learning under a SB winning HC. He vowed to "fix the defense" and to make this team, bigger, faster, smarter, and tougher. He delivered on none of his promises.

Bowlen and Ellis believed in him and gave him everything he needed to carryout his plan, including personnel decisions that so many coaches claim they need. McDaniels wielded this power like a 10 year old who had found his father's gun. He was reckless and careless with what he did with that power and eventually he had dug himself a hole too deep to get out of. he had to go and, make no mistake, it was ALL HIS FAULT!

[I Eat Staples]

Bowlen allowed his proud franchise to fall into despair by hiring McDaniels and letting him act like a kid in a candy store. Firing this ass clown is the best move that could have been made. The only way to start healing is to remove the cancer.

[Lancane]

Bowlen allowed his proud franchise to fall into despair by hiring McDaniels and letting him act like a kid in a candy store. Firing this ass clown is the best move that could have been made. The only way to start healing is to remove the cancer.

And finding a franchise quarterback, whether it's Tebow or someone else. The trade of Cutler I think is starting to sting more and more now, and if Denver fans are any one thing, it's quarterback crazies. Because if there is one thing we argue the most about, it's the goddamn quarterback position. No quarterback since Elway has had the majority of the support by the fandom, that is until Jay Cutler...that was splintered by McDaniels and we're right back at it.

:tsk:

[Denver Native (Carol)]

From article:


But can you handle the truth? Firing McDaniels might allow everybody to exhale, but it doesn't move the Broncos one step closer to bringing back the good times. This is a franchise in a steady decline for a dozen years, since quarterback John Elway retired in the glow of two super seasons that allowed Bowlen to win taxpayer support for the construction of Invesco Field at Mile High.


With only one division title and a single playoff victory during a stretch of 12 NFL seasons, the stadium that promised to keep the Broncos competitive well into the 21st century has become Bowlen's folly. It's a beautiful, oddly cold place that leaves fans with such an empty feeling about their beloved team that season- ticket holders tell me they have trouble giving their seats away on any given Sunday.

[dasn101]

I find Kiszla to be a thoroughly and consistently negative post writer. I'm all down with the firing of McDaniels, but this guy couldn't convince me he was a fan or even well wisher if his life depended on it.

[I Eat Staples]

And finding a franchise quarterback, whether it's Tebow or someone else. The trade of Cutler I think is starting to sting more and more now, and if Denver fans are any one thing, it's quarterback crazies. Because if there is one thing we argue the most about, it's the goddamn quarterback position. No quarterback since Elway has had the majority of the support by the fandom, that is until Jay Cutler...that was splintered by McDaniels and we're right back at it.

:tsk:

I agree with you for the most part, but I think Orton can be a franchise QB.

Not as good as Cutler, but he's done a good job in my opinion.

[Tned]

Heavy on rhetoric and opinion, light on facts and accuracy.

[Lancane]

I agree with you for the most part, but I think Orton can be a franchise QB.

Not as good as Cutler, but he's done a good job in my opinion.

It will not happen, it's like being in a terrorist attack then hugging the terrorist that set you free. Doesn't mean you want to take him home to your parents or join his organization. I know that it's harsh...but truth is that Orton will never have a favorable following in Denver, he's marred by the Cutler trade, even though he is not at fault, he's marred by McDaniels, even though he is not at fault.

Denver fans are particular when it comes to that one position, if we have the worst defense in the league, so be it...but we better have a franchise quarterback, some people will argue that. But they know I am right, nothing causes more arguments then who we have at that position. Only a small handful actually believe Orton has what it takes, that's not enough in my opinion for Bowlen and those who come in to settle for him. IMHO, Orton will not be in Denver for long...and Tebow may follow.

This is the toughest town to be a quarterback in. - John Elway

[silkamilkamonico]

So when McDaniels took over and we were one of the most "coveted" franchises to work for with one of the best owners in the league all that magically changed because of Bowlen in a year and a half?

We were an organization that was set on offense, and just as confused on defense. Then Bowlen hires some 32 year old coordinator and proceeds to give him the keys to the entire organization. Bowlen didn't even bother stepping in when McDaniels started running the organization into the ground.

Like everything that happens to the team is a direct refelction of the coach (McDaniels), everything that happens with the organization is a direct reflection of the owner (Bowlen).

Don't kid yourself. This is all Bowlen's fault.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

Steady decline? Strange I must have slept through all of those seasons that we went from 10-6 to 8-8 to 6-10 to 4-12 and bottomed out with a top 5 draft pick. Oh wait, that's because it NEVER HAPPENED. Kizla's a damned McDaniels loving Drama Queen. Steady decline? Well, if you consider we were 3 years removed from the Conference Championship Game (which some NFL franchises haven't actually played in in my lifetime) with Shanahan with no season under 6-10 in his whole tenure as coach, I say "Steady decline" is complete horse shit. Stagnant? Maybe. Declining? Bullshit!

There were no bag wearing fans, nor were there "fire ______" signs at home games, nor were there empty seats or disinterested fans who had stopped buying merchandise. Before McDaniels came along we ALWAYS felt we had at least a chance at a playoff spot... ALWAYS!

And this clown calls himself a journalist. Bowlen should sue his ass for Libel because his article is the biggest crock of lies I've seen yet.

[silkamilkamonico]

This is a franchise in a steady decline for a dozen years, since quarterback John Elway retired in the glow of two super seasons that allowed Bowlen to win taxpayer support for the construction of Invesco Field at Mile High.

I've been saying this for years. I'm glad a sports journalist finally did some research to figure this out, about 8 years too late.

[Lancane]

I've been saying this for years. I'm glad a sports journalist finally did some research to figure this out, about 8 years too late.

I figured you'd agree with it Silk...:lol:

Bowlen would have to prove himself a genius to get Silk's support at this time...:laugh:

[eessydo]

Oh, well if you listened to McDaniels that cancer was Cutler, Marshall and Scheffler....................er, maybe had he stuck with them they could have saved his ass for another year.


Bowlen allowed his proud franchise to fall into despair by hiring McDaniels and letting him act like a kid in a candy store. Firing this ass clown is the best move that could have been made. The only way to start healing is to remove the cancer.

[Tned]

I've been saying this for years. I'm glad a sports journalist finally did some research to figure this out, about 8 years too late.

Ok, you're both wrong.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

We were an organization that was set on offense, and just as confused on defense. Then Bowlen hires some 32 year old coordinator and proceeds to give him the keys to the entire organization. Bowlen didn't even bother stepping in when McDaniels started running the organization into the ground.

Like everything that happens to the team is a direct refelction of the coach (McDaniels), everything that happens with the organization is a direct reflection of the owner (Bowlen).

Don't kid yourself. This is all Bowlen's fault.

So why wasn't it Bowlen's fault until after Shanahan left? When Shanahan was fired, nobody blamed Bowlen for the status of the franchise. It was that evil, power hungry, arrogant SOB Shanahan sucking off the tit of his prior success and riding it out. Now that it's poor wittle Joshie Pooh who got fired, he was scapegoated, given too much power, and of course it's all Bowlen's fault, now. The only thing Bowlen is at fault for is trusting McDaniels to do what he said he would. Josh lied, Bowlen and Broncos fans paid the price.

[eessydo]

I hate to point to the facts (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/den/), but we did go to the NFC championship in 2005 with Jake Plummer, 7 year removed from our last super bowl victory after Brian Griese. So "Steady decline" is relative to us expecting Super Bowls, not the reality of our record.

Please go read the facts (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/den/) before you try and jump on the back of a journalist who only offered up his "opinion". Facts and opinions are completely different and there was no research had to express it.

It took me all of 2 seconds to look it up and prove you wrong.


I've been saying this for years. I'm glad a sports journalist finally did some research to figure this out, about 8 years too late.

[silkamilkamonico]

I figured you'd agree with it Silk...:lol:

Bowlen would have to prove himself a genius to get Silk's support at this time...:laugh:

Well, with all due respect to Bowlen and any other fans that have followed this organization since the turn of the millenium, if you can't smell the stagnant place this organization has been in, you need to take off your rose colored glasses.

My mistake is the steady decline. It was a stagnant decline, with absolutely no progression. The 2000 years were certainly not anywhere near as successful as the 1990's.

[Lancane]

Well, with all due respect to Bowlen and any other fans that have followed this organization since the turn of the millenium, if you can't smell the stagnant place this organization has been in, you need to take off your rose colored glasses.

My mistake is the steady decline. It was a stagnant decline, with absolutely no progression. The 2000 years were certainly not anywhere near as successful as the 1990's.

I agree with you, and that does rest on Bowlen's feet, because he was so use to giving the head coaches full power. Reeves had it when he bought the team, and because of Reeve's success and Shanahan's desire to continue that way, it became the blue print for this organization, but I do believe Bowlen has learned the error of his ways, that's why he's looking to hire more decision makers in the front office.

[silkamilkamonico]

Ok, you're both wrong.

I admitted it. A stagnant progression with absolutely no development was so much better.

2000 - 11-5
2001 - 8-8
2002 - 9-7
2003 - 10-6
2004 - 10-6
2005 - 13-3
2006 - 9-7
2007 - 7-8
2008 - 8-8


Just look at that upward progression. That was most definetely an organization that was going places when McDaniels took over. If I were to define progression from a record standpoint, this would most definetely be it. The way they started the decade winning almost 10 games every year, to finishing the last 3 years without evebn making the playoffs. Absolutely unbelievable.

[silkamilkamonico]

So why wasn't it Bowlen's fault until after Shanahan left? When Shanahan was fired, nobody blamed Bowlen for the status of the franchise.

It was. At least IMHO. Not only did he not fire Shanahan earlier then he should have, but he allowed Shanahan to continue after he finally broke through with a 13-3 season, and then in wake of an embarassing playoff blowout loss at home, proceeds to change QB's instead of building what we had that year, and Denver has yet to see the playoffs since.

Not to mention, not stepping in earlier and saving Shanahan from himself with all of his defensive changes. If he did it earlier, Shanahan might have actually won with Cutler and would still be in Denver.

It's been Bowlen and his business model's fault the entire time, IMHO.

[silkamilkamonico]

I agree with you, and that does rest on Bowlen's feet, because he was so use to giving the head coaches full power. Reeves had it when he bought the team, and because of Reeve's success and Shanahan's desire to continue that way, it became the blue print for this organization, but I do believe Bowlen has learned the error of his ways, that's why he's looking to hire more decision makers in the front office.

Well, if Bowlen can turn this around I will most definetely be the first to acknowledge it. I did with McDaniels. I may have strong opinions, but I will not argue with actual results, or lack of them for that matter.

[OrangeHoof]

but I think Orton can be a franchise QB.


I must have missed the laugh track.

We've certainly devalued the term "franchise QB" haven't we? It used to mean a Brady or a Manning. Now it means Orton? I'll agree Orton has exceeded expectations and can be a starting NFL quarterback but I doubt he'll ever be more than, say, Joe Flacco - competent but not great.

[silkamilkamonico]

I hate to point to the facts (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/den/), but we did go to the NFC championship in 2005 with Jake Plummer, 7 year removed from our last super bowl victory after Brian Griese. So "Steady decline" is relative to us expecting Super Bowls, not the reality of our record.

Please go read the facts (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/den/) before you try and jump on the back of a journalist who only offered up his "opinion". Facts and opinions are completely different and there was no research had to express it.

It took me all of 2 seconds to look it up and prove you wrong.

Would you care to explain to me your facts of how this organization could not figure out how to not get blwon out in the playoffs? How convenient of you to somehow leave that little nugget completely out of the equation.

[eessydo]

So now we are saying we had a steady decline "in the playoffs" but not season to season?

I am totally confused. A steady decline would have our record trending downwards over the 8 year period, because your view is that this being pointed out by the media was just "8 years to late". I show you how just 5 years ago we had a bye-week, won a divisional game and went to the AFC championship and now it is about the playoffs and our losses?

Seems like you are working on a moving topic now that someone showed you how clearly you were wrong on jumping on the back of this reporter.

Facts are facts, and they are not on your side.


Would you care to explain to me your facts of how this organization could not figure out how to not get blwon out in the playoffs? How convenient of you to somehow leave that little nugget completely out of the equation.

[silkamilkamonico]

So now we are saying we had a steady decline "in the playoffs" but not season to season?

I am totally confused. A steady decline would have our record trending downwards over the 8 year period, because your view is that this being pointed out by the media was just "8 years to late". I show you how just 5 years ago we had a bye-week, won a divisional game and went to the AFC championship and now it is about the playoffs and our losses?

Seems like you are working on a moving topic now that someone showed you how clearly you were wrong on jumping on the back of this reporter.

Facts are facts, and they are not on your side.

If you are somehow implying that the playoffs are some kind of chocolate at the end of the Sundae Cone and what really matters is the regular season, then your facts are utterly ridiculous and I'm not even going to waste my time.

[Dreadnought]

I admitted it. A stagnant progression with absolutely no development was so much better.

2000 - 11-5
2001 - 8-8
2002 - 9-7
2003 - 10-6
2004 - 10-6
2005 - 13-3
2006 - 9-7
2007 - 7-8
2008 - 8-8
Pretty good record, all things considered. You've been peddling this theory of yours that the organization was broken for years; it has never been even close to accurate...well, perhaps until 2010 I guess. In any event there are 32 teams, and only one gets a Lombardi every year. If thats your only measure of success then not much help anyone can give you I guess. For me I wanty the Broncos to win as many games as possible every year. 8-8 looks pretty damned good compared to whatever we'll end up at. 9-7 better still. 10-6 even better. Every year you win more than you lose is in fact a good year. Totally satisfying? Nope, but then life is funny like that.

[turftoad]

Steady decline? Strange I must have slept through all of those seasons that we went from 10-6 to 8-8 to 6-10 to 4-12 and bottomed out with a top 5 draft pick. Oh wait, that's because it NEVER HAPPENED. Kizla's a damned McDaniels loving Drama Queen. Steady decline? Well, if you consider we were 3 years removed from the Conference Championship Game (which some NFL franchises haven't actually played in in my lifetime) with Shanahan with no season under 6-10 in his whole tenure as coach, I say "Steady decline" is complete horse shit. Stagnant? Maybe. Declining? Bullshit!

There were no bag wearing fans, nor were there "fire ______" signs at home games, nor were there empty seats or disinterested fans who had stopped buying merchandise. Before McDaniels came along we ALWAYS felt we had at least a chance at a playoff spot... ALWAYS!

And this clown calls himself a journalist. Bowlen should sue his ass for Libel because his article is the biggest crock of lies I've seen yet.

I agree 100%. We used to think we ALWAYS had a shot at the division up until 3 years ago. The steady decline happened the day Bowlen fired Shanahan.

[silkamilkamonico]

Pretty good record, all things considered. You've been peddling this theory of yours that the organization was broken for years; it has never been even close to accurate...well, perhaps until 2010 I guess. In any event there are 32 teams, and only one gets a Lombardi every year. If thats your only measure of success then not much help anyone can give you I guess. For me I wanty the Broncos to win as many games as possible every year. 8-8 looks pretty damned good compared to whatever we'll end up at. 9-7 better still. 10-6 even better. Every year you win more than you lose is in fact a good year. Totally satisfying? Nope, but then life is funny like that.

No I haven't. You are wrong. I have said throughout the years the orgranization is "stagnant"....not "broken". Stagnant and broken are two completely different meanings.

[Northman]

Hogwash.

Is/was McDaniels the ONLY problem no. Ellis is equally to blame but McDaniels was the greater problem so we are taking a step in the right direction to fixing that problem.

[TXBRONC]

From article:

That's his opinion but I don't think the fact support what Kiszla is trying to sell.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

That's his opinion but I don't think the fact support what Kizla is trying to sell.

I'm not sure how the following from the article can even be debated, as it is fact:


With only one division title and a single playoff victory during a stretch of 12 NFL seasons, the stadium that promised to keep the Broncos competitive well into the 21st century has become Bowlen's folly. It's a beautiful, oddly cold place that leaves fans with such an empty feeling about their beloved team that season- ticket holders tell me they have trouble giving their seats away on any given Sunday.


http://www.denverpost.com/kiszla/ci_16795158

Kiszla points out things he feels McDaniels did wrong, but his article is pointing the finger at ownership - and not for just the past two years.

[Lancane]

The problems are quite simple, Bowlen is responsible because he's the owner...but, since purchasing this team, he has had head coaches with that sort of power. Even with the firing of Reeves, Bowlen saw no reason to change it, after all Reeves had proven to be a winner more then any other head coach in Broncos history, and I'm not talking just win-loss, I'm talking about Division Championships, Playoff berths and wins, Conference Championships, Super Bowl appearances and so forth. So Bowlen said what the hell, and it worked, it netted two Super Bowl Championships...but then it began to run stale, and instead of changing to limit the power we had a bunch of mediocre years where we would be good, but not be able to surpass that hump into the upper echelon again. He did the same thing with McDaniels, and I believe he's finally seeing the error of his ways, because the decline of this team is McDaniels fault, but put into motion by Bowlen's own reluctance to be involved.

;)

[tomjonesrocks]

Unsure if this has been posted as I haven't read the whole thread, but Kizla wrote some scathing articles about McD...

[Tned]

Hogwash.

Is/was McDaniels the ONLY problem no. Ellis is equally to blame but McDaniels was the greater problem so we are taking a step in the right direction to fixing that problem.

I've seen this a few times, but how exactly is Ellis equally to blame?

[Northman]

I've seen this a few times, but how exactly is Ellis equally to blame?

He's a terrible GM. I thought you knew that.

[Tned]

He's a terrible GM. I thought you knew that.

He's not the GM.

[Northman]

He's not the GM.

Thats right Xanders, forgot he even existed. But i know that Ellis was the main catalyst for Mcd being hired.

[TXBRONC]

I'm not sure how the following from the article can even be debated, as it is fact:



http://www.denverpost.com/kiszla/ci_16795158

Kiszla points out things he feels McDaniels did wrong, but his article is pointing the finger at ownership - and not for just the past two years.

As it was pointed out earlier the article is heavy on rhetoric and opinion and light on facts and accuracy.

In decline? The team was competitive through out the vast majority of Shanahan's career. He was let go because he didn't team back to an elite level. I'm sure I'm not mistaken on the fact that McDaniels was brought in bring team back to elite status correct? He overhauled better than 80% roster and that's Bowlen's fault? I don't think so. He traded his best talent away and replaced with mediocre and aging players. We knew he was suppose to fix the defense. He started off that way but he didn't end that way. Instead of making the defense younger he made it older.

He made bunch personnel gaffes can't be blamed on Bowlen. Bowlen gave his the authority to make the decisions and he made some really poor ones.

Where Kiszla really goes wrong is that he fails mention that it didn't take long and McDaniels set the pattern for showing he seriously lacked people skills which lead to depleted the roster of talent and his coaching staff. That's McDaniels fault not Bowlen's.

Bowlen's culpability is that he gave McDaniels way to much authority and he clearly wasn't ready for that much responsibility.

[Tned]

Thats right Xanders, forgot he even existed. But i know that Ellis was the main catalyst for Mcd being hired.

Completely incorrect. I responded to someone else (with an article documenting that inaccuracy) just within the last couple days.

[Medford Bronco]

Heavy on rhetoric and opinion, light on facts and accuracy.

Isnt that Kiszla at his finest:lol:

[Northman]

Completely incorrect. I responded to someone else (with an article documenting that inaccuracy) just within the last couple days.

I know i read an article somewhere that he was. So who's right? :lol:

[Day1BroncoFan]

If Bowlen did anything wrong it was waiting to long to get rid of shanny and hiring josh in the first place.

It was getting bad with shanny. Josh just killed the whole thing.

[TXBRONC]

Isnt that Kiszla at his finest:lol:

On rare occasions I agree with him but most of the time he does seem skip past important details when making his point.

[Tned]

I know i read an article somewhere that he was. So who's right? :lol:

Me, of course.

It's well documented, and was discussed at the press conference today, that Bowlen decided McDaniels was the man after he met him in Boston. Ellis said that he, Xanders and the Goodmans were also impressed with McD, but Bowlen made the decision on that first interview they all attended. This was widely reported at the time, and recounted today in the press conference.

Ellis, and I believe the Goodmans (possibly Xanders), went back out for a longer followup, but that was just to go through the details/technicalities of the hiring.

About the only thing we could blame Ellis for, along with Xanders and the Goodmans, would be for not convincing Bolwen he was making the wrong decision.

Sorry, I know it's en vogue to blame people, but if someone 'must' be blamed for hiring McDaniels, it falls squarely on Pat Bowlen's shoulders.

[NameUsedBefore]

Any proven NFL coach who cares about his legacy, whether we're talking Jon Gruden or Bill Cowher, would be a fool to even consider taking the job in Denver, where you have to wonder if Bowlen's passion for winning is now truly worthy of the Broncomaniacs who live and die with their team.

If Bowlen didn't have that passion wouldn't McDaniels still be Denver's coach?



The Broncos forgot how to win before McDaniels arrived.

If this were true then wouldn't McDaniels be hired to fix that? Then McDaniels would also be doing a worse job than the people he replaced in fixing that? I'm sorry, what the **** is Kiszla talking about?


You can blame McDaniels for drafting Tim Tebow, a first-round player who was declared unready to play for a 3-9 team during the final hours his coach was on the job. There were head-scratching trades, an unhealthy reliance on inexperienced assistant coaches and an obsession with collecting more quarterbacks than any one man could possibly use after dumping Jay Cutler.

But McDaniels didn't create the mess at Broncos headquarters.

http://newer.gifdump.com/uploads/Suicide%20Smiley.gif

[turftoad]

On rare occasions I agree with him but most of the time he does seem skip past important details when making his point.

That seems to be the case with many if not most. Posting part of an article and highlighting (copy and pasting) the writers POV that suite the poster POV is only opinion.
I'm sure the whole front office has part to blame in this whole thing but taking McD's side over the Broncos owner at this point in the game seems rediculous to me. Kizla is very opinionated and he does skip past important details.

[Northman]

That seems to be the case with many if not most. Posting part of an article and highlighting (copy and pasting) the writers POV that suite the poster POV is only opinion.
I'm sure the whole front office has part to blame in this whole thing but taking McD's side over the Broncos owner at this point in the game seems rediculous to me. Kizla is very opinionated and he does skip past important details.

Ditto but expected. Like i said a while back, some people are just in serious denial.

[Day1BroncoFan]

We're stuck with Bowlen and someone had to go.

[turftoad]

We're stuck with Bowlen and someone had to go.

And it wasn't going to be Bowlen. :listen:

[Ravage!!!]

I admitted it. A stagnant progression with absolutely no development was so much better.

2000 - 11-5
2001 - 8-8
2002 - 9-7
2003 - 10-6
2004 - 10-6
2005 - 13-3
2006 - 9-7
2007 - 7-8
2008 - 8-8


Just look at that upward progression. That was most definetely an organization that was going places when McDaniels took over. If I were to define progression from a record standpoint, this would most definetely be it. The way they started the decade winning almost 10 games every year, to finishing the last 3 years without evebn making the playoffs. Absolutely unbelievable.

Isn't this one of the TOP winniest teams during this time span??? :confused: I'm pretty sure it is.

Not to mention, what significant piece to the roster retired? The same missing piece that has taken franchies like the Niners, cowboys, the Dolphins, the Bills, and before Rothlesburger.. the steelers. Alllll teams that won Multible Super Bowls (ok, the Bills haven't won, but went to four in a row. Still absolute dominance of a conference)... yet couldn't go back in teh WHOPPING 7 years that you wanted it to happen.

Also.. the teams that had a bigger winning percentage during that time span... who was behind center???

You are right. ITs absolutely unbelievable when people can't recognize success... in FACT... more success than ANY OTHER NFL coach has ever had after losing a franchise QB in that time span. I know you've seen the facts.

Astounding, that its just not good enough. Its remarks like that, that makes a person want to shove the CURRENT roster and record to the face and just scream "THIS is what is TRULY absolutely unbelievable."

[Tned]

Isn't this one of the TOP winniest teams during this time span??? :confused: I'm pretty sure it is.



Not too many teams average 9.5 wins a season over a 9 year stretch, especially when it's two years after back-to-back SBs, which always results in losing top free agents, and then made worse by losing Elway, TD and others.

Once again, no offense meant, honestly, but prior to the last 22 games, the Broncos fans were among the most spoiled in the NFL. We didn't know how good we had it, until Josh Mcdaniels showed us what other fans have to go through every 8-15 years (Broncos fans every 40 years or so).

[silkamilkamonico]

Isn't this one of the TOP winniest teams during this time span??? :confused: I'm pretty sure it is.

That doesn't make it some kind of exception of being a stagnant organization. I'm not sure why it's so hard to understand this?




Also.. the teams that had a bigger winning percentage during that time span... who was behind center???

Peyton Manning? The golden boy who was an epic failure in playoff games, until the Denver Broncos came along and jump started his postseason career in a BIG way? Has absolutely no impact of Denver becoming stagnant, and then actually declining.



You are right. ITs absolutely unbelievable when people can't recognize success... in FACT... more success than ANY OTHER NFL coach has ever had after losing a franchise QB in that time span. I know you've seen the facts.

Please do not change the facts of my argument being Denver became a stagnant organization.



Astounding, that its just not good enough. Its remarks like that, that makes a person want to shove the CURRENT roster and record to the face and just scream "THIS is what is TRULY absolutely unbelievable."

Again, how convenient of you to subtly leave out Denver's inability to figure out how to not only lose in the playoffs, but get completely blown the f out. We were Courtney Innegan to the rest of the playoffs Andre Johnson.

"But hey, who cares about playoffs when you win in the regular season."

[Ravage!!!]

That doesn't make it some kind of exception of being a stagnant organization. I'm not sure why it's so hard to understand this?
What I don't understand is how you are unable to see success, MORE SUCCESS than any other franchise has had after losing a franchise QB?


Peyton Manning? The golden boy who was an epic failure in playoff games, until the Denver Broncos came along and jump started his postseason career in a BIG way? Has absolutely no impact of Denver becoming stagnant, and then actually declining.
We weren't declining..NOT declining. But you can call Manning all the names you want to, doesn't change the fact that he's goingto go down as one of the greatest QBs to play the game.

A QB doesn't have to win Super Bowl after Super Bowl to be considered great. Just as a team doesn't have to go to the Super Bowl every other season to be considered contenders. How is THAT so hard to understand?


Please do not change the facts of my argument being Denver became a stagnant organization.
Didn't change your arguement, one bit.


Again, how convenient of you to subtly leave out Denver's inability to figure out how to not only lose in the playoffs, but get completely blown the f out. We were Courtney Innegan to the rest of the playoffs Andre Johnson.

"But hey, who cares about playoffs when you win in the regular season."
How "convenient" of you to ignore success when its flat out in front of you.

Look. I get it. To you, its ALL or NOTHING. Its either winning the SUper Bowl, or its a failed season. I get that because I used to believe it. But I've grown up and past that. That's a defeatist attitude that will NEVER be reached. Thats unrealistic.

Personally, I'll shoot for the stars, but if I only reach the moon, then I've still succeeded. Believe it or not, there IS success other than Super Bowls. There are greys in sports. There is the Ultimate goal, of course. But teams/franchises/players can have success despite not having that pinnacle in the span of time it take to BUILD after the kind of losses this team suffered.

If we had a Losing record that would be one thing, but you are trying to label a team "stagnant" when they win more than nearly EVERY OTHER Team in the NFL, and doing it with the likes of Griese and Plummer!!?? Talk about convenient!! Good god, its a good thing you chose the Broncos instead of the Cowboys, Steelers, 49ers, Dolphins, or Bills....because you would be in complete HELL! All successful teams until they have to try and build AFTER their Franchise QB. We win MORE games than any other franchise in a 10 year span... and its just not good enough.

Yet you want to tell me I'm being "convenient?" :lol: ok

[silkamilkamonico]

What I don't understand is how you are unable to see success, MORE SUCCESS than any other franchise has had after losing a franchise QB?

And then when he gains his franchise QB, the organization goes 17-20 and misses the playoffs for 3 straight years. Or did he have him with Plummer when he actually won a playoff game after building for 4 years, and then proceeds to blow it up.....again.




We weren't declining..NOT declining. But you can call Manning all the names you want to, doesn't change the fact that he's goingto go down as one of the greatest QBs to play the game.

This has been acknowleged and dealt with. Again..."declining" and "stagnant" do not mean the same thing.




A QB doesn't have to win Super Bowl after Super Bowl to be considered great. Just as a team doesn't have to go to the Super Bowl every other season to be considered contenders. How is THAT so hard to understand?

It isn't........:confused: And we weren't going to the SuperBowls. We were having a hard time figuring out how to not get blown out in the playoffs = stagnant. Shouldn't really be that hard to understand.




Didn't change your arguement, one bit.

Seems to me like you did, above, again....



How "convenient" of you to ignore success when its flat out in front of you.


Success is measured with many different formulas. At some point, you need someone to come in and simplify the argument when the current regime isn't.



Look. I get it. To you, its ALL or NOTHING. Its either winning the SUper Bowl, or its a failed season. I get that because I used to believe it. But I've grown up and past that. That's a defeatist attitude that will NEVER be reached. Thats unrealistic.

No. You don't get it. Not even close actually. Shanahan had 7 years (or whatever) to 'figure it out'. Denver was "all about SueprBowls" if I recall correctly. Shanahan made specific moves (Bailey) to beat one time (Indianapolis) and he failed miserably. He did a great job having SUCCESS in Denver, even up until 2005. What he could NOT do was get Denver over the hump. That's what you're failing to understand, and significantly I might add.

Bowlen made the right decision when he canned Shanahan, in what was basically "thanks for everything, thanks for keeping us competitive, now I need to find someone who can bring us over the top".

[Ravage!!!]

:lol: Wow.. seven years! :lol: hahaha

[Poet]

I know what Ravage is saying. All things considered, the success and winning seasons that the Broncos had after Elway was fantastic.

I know what Silk is saying. Who cares about Elway leaving, if you can't coach the team into tangible post season success what's the point of getting to the playoffs every year.

On one side you have a lot of the 'bad' years being an average team that's worth watching. On the other side you a playoff win and one division title.

[silkamilkamonico]

:lol: Wow.. seven years! :lol: hahaha

http://madtown.cc/d/27616-1/Slow-Clap.gif

Outstanding argument you got going for yourself!

[Ravage!!!]

I know what Ravage is saying. All things considered, the success and winning seasons that the Broncos had after Elway was fantastic.

I know what Silk is saying. Who cares about Elway leaving, if you can't coach the team into tangible post season success what's the point of getting to the playoffs every year.

On one side you have a lot of the 'bad' years being an average team that's worth watching. On the other side you a playoff win and one division title.


We didn't even win the division in the first Super Bowl win.... so that doesn't mean anything to me, personally.

But I get what he's saying, and I'm not even argueing whether it was time to let Shanahan go or not. But I don't consider an average of 9.5 wins a season over a decade, to be a bad thing. There was always room for improvement, but while moving TOWARDS that improvement, at least we didn't fall into the 3 win seasons that every team fell into after losing their HoF QB.

:shrug: Some people think that 7 years is a ton of time to get back to the Super Bowl after winning one. I know the average time is more than double that.

:beer: Oh well. Something Silk and I will never agree on, I guess. I just hope that we don't look back at those "stagnant" years with dreamy eyes and refer to them as the "good-ol-days."

[Lancane]

I know what Ravage is saying. All things considered, the success and winning seasons that the Broncos had after Elway was fantastic.

I know what Silk is saying. Who cares about Elway leaving, if you can't coach the team into tangible post season success what's the point of getting to the playoffs every year.

On one side you have a lot of the 'bad' years being an average team that's worth watching. On the other side you a playoff win and one division title.

I understand both sides as well King, but truth is that Bowlen followed the only blue print he knew and was use to, and up till 1999 it was rather successful. The eleven years since, it's been 'we need this' or 'were missing that', but it never seemed that coaching was any longer enough...Bowlen had faith in the blue print, when he should have said "Hey Mike, let's try this", he didn't want to be involved and that does rest on him, after all there is more to running a successful organization then just handing the keys to the Ferrari to the next guy and telling him to drive freely, even recklessly.

But, I do think Bowlen is starting to see that now...and you know what they say...better late then never.

[Ravage!!!]

http://madtown.cc/d/27616-1/Slow-Clap.gif

Outstanding argument you got going for yourself!

Nice.

THere is no arguing, Silk. We aren't going to see eye-to-eye on this and its just beating my head against a wall. I think you are unreasonable. I'm not going to change your mind. What is there to argue? Be a WTM and clap all you want :lol: Doesn't make your points more viable.

[silkamilkamonico]

Nice.

THere is no arguing, Silk. We aren't going to see eye-to-eye on this and its just beating my head against a wall. I think you are unreasonable. I'm not going to change your mind. What is there to argue? Be a WTM and clap all you want :lol: Doesn't make your points more viable.

I am not unreasonable. I simply do not share your opinion on this subject. I'm also not sure why you continue to argue this opinion as factual based and somehow others are wrong. I am certainly not wrong with my opinion about thanking Shanahan for everything he has done, for keeping us competitive, and wanting a new coach that can get us back to maybe winning a playoff game or 2.

[Ravage!!!]

I understand both sides as well King, but truth is that Bowlen followed the only blue print he knew and was use to, and up till 1999 it was rather successful. The eleven years since, it's been 'we need this' or 'were missing that', but it never seemed that coaching was any longer enough...Bowlen had faith in the blue print, when he should have said "Hey Mike, let's try this", he didn't want to be involved and that does rest on him, after all there is more to running a successful organization then just handing the keys to the Ferrari to the next guy and telling him to drive freely, even recklessly.

But, I do think Bowlen is starting to see that now...and you know what they say...better late then never.

If.. IF.. we hadn't had MORE success than EVERY coach, and EVER franchise that had followed up for the decade after losing a franchise QB, then I could see your point.

But EVERY team that has lost that kind of presence, dropped severely. Shanahan and the Broncos out-performed ALL of them during that decade. So yeah, of course we were always "just needing this, and just needing that" (thats just coach-talk anyway and should never be taken seriously).

Again... let me make it very clear that I"m not saying we should NOT have let Shanahan go when we did. I believe it was time. But I'm not buying into this notion that those years were a failure simply because we didn't go back to the Super Bowl in 7 years...and BTW...getting back to the AFC Championship game in '05 was faster than anyone else, as well.

But... I digress............ finally :lol:

[Ravage!!!]

I am not unreasonable. I simply do not share your opinion on this subject. I'm also not sure why you continue to argue this opinion as factual based and somehow others are wrong. I am certainly not wrong with my opinion about thanking Shanahan for everything he has done, for keeping us competitive, and wanting a new coach that can get us back to maybe winning a playoff game or 2.

I said I think you are unreasonable, because its my opinion that you are when it comes to this subject. I'm not saying my opinion is 'fact' anymore than you are.

I'm simply pointing out my perspective, and doing it while NOT showing sarcastic clapping pictures.

But asI've said... my complaint isn't that it was time to change, its the complaint about the perceived (or perhaps, expressed) perception of failure because we didn't go-all-the-way again.

[silkamilkamonico]

I said I think you are unreasonable, because its my opinion that you are when it comes to this subject. I'm not saying my opinion is 'fact' anymore than you are.

I'm simply pointing out my perspective, and doing it while NOT showing sarcastic clapping pictures.
.

You post vague mockery statements of posts, I post sarcastic clapping pictures. We're both winners with this.

[Poet]

We didn't even win the division in the first Super Bowl win.... so that doesn't mean anything to me, personally.

But I get what he's saying, and I'm not even argueing whether it was time to let Shanahan go or not. But I don't consider an average of 9.5 wins a season over a decade, to be a bad thing. There was always room for improvement, but while moving TOWARDS that improvement, at least we didn't fall into the 3 win seasons that every team fell into after losing their HoF QB.

:shrug: Some people think that 7 years is a ton of time to get back to the Super Bowl after winning one. I know the average time is more than double that.

:beer: Oh well. Something Silk and I will never agree on, I guess. I just hope that we don't look back at those "stagnant" years with dreamy eyes and refer to them as the "good-ol-days."

It's different for each fan. A lot of fans want as many accolades as their team can get. Other fans have your thought process, others have Silk's, others have a mish mash.

Honestly a lot of times we get caught up in the debate or the 'history' and forget to look at the context.

My opinion is that Shanahan is still a great coach, even though I think he's kind of a tool. What got him fired was the GM and management part of his job/jobs/situation.

I don't expect a coach to ever win a Super Bowl. As much as we like to forget about it, winning a SB takes a ton of luck. The Saints got a ton of breaks just to get to the SB. The Colts had the luck of playing against the Bears, who may have had the worst SB team I've ever seen, barring only the Falcons. The Steelers were fortunate in 2005 that the Seahawks shot themselves in the foot and that the refs had a lot of questionable calls. Just examples off the top of my head.

Certain contexts demand more or less patience. McD's situation did not deserve as much patience as the Lions' head coach or even Spags in Saint Louis.

Personally, I do expect a coach to field competitive teams. At a certain point, I expect that the coach win some playoff games. That's why I can't stand Marvin Lewis, we get to the playoffs after two or three seasons of missing the cut and then we do nothing. Then, after making the post season, we fall apart and then repeat the process. In effect, we're not accomplishing or TRULY building towards anything.

If you hit that point, eventually there needs to be a change. I am not comparing Shanny, a HoF coach to ML in terms of success or overall skill so much as I am comparing Shanny's worst run to ML's...friggen tenure.

As far as the franchise falling off, I don't think it was falling off in the terms of being competitive or being respectable so much as it fell off as an elite franchise in terms of competing for Super Bowls.

[atwater27]

Kisla makes some good points in this article:





http://www.denverpost.com/kiszla/ci_16795158 - rest of article - many good points in it

Wow, are you actually defending McDaniels, then in the process denigrating the Broncos as a crappy franchise before he even got here?

The plain fact is... we were great on offense and shitty on defense before McD got here. Now we are average on offense and shitty on defense, with a MAJOR NET LOSS in the draft pick department. McD took a situation he could have remedied, and made it worse in many, many ways that will take 5 years to heal from. WOW.

[jhildebrand]

The media is doing their best to try to pin everything on Bowlen in hopes of seeing him change his model. aving a GM isn't the only way to win in the NFL. It is the most popular right now. Personally, I hope Bowlen does hire a GM especially if he wants to go cheap on a coach. However, to try to twist and skew the record McDaniels had here as Bowlen's fault almost entirely is a bit silly.

[TXBRONC]

The media is doing their best to try to pin everything on Bowlen in hopes of seeing him change his model. aving a GM isn't the only way to win in the NFL. It is the most popular right now. Personally, I hope Bowlen does hire a GM especially if he wants to go cheap on a coach. However, to try to twist and skew the record McDaniels had here as Bowlen's fault almost entirely is a bit silly.

Guys like Kiszla yeah but there are others who aren't at least locally like Krieger. In his article yesterday he was pretty hard on McDaniels and even called a liar, rightfully so imo.

[GEM]

You post vague mockery statements of posts, I post sarcastic clapping pictures. We're both winners with this.

To the both of you.....can you stop your pissing match. It leaves a mess on the floor that neither of you are going to clean up.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

That seems to be the case with many if not most. Posting part of an article and highlighting (copy and pasting) the writers POV that suite the poster POV is only opinion.
I'm sure the whole front office has part to blame in this whole thing but taking McD's side over the Broncos owner at this point in the game seems rediculous to me. Kizla is very opinionated and he does skip past important details.

Not sure why you are taking shots at me, but let me explain. FIRST, I am the one who brought the copyright article the Denver Post had online to Tned's attention, and I told Tned at that time, that I was probably the one who had been posting an entire article from the DP the most. So, based on that article, and Tned's message on BF in regards to posting articles - i.e. copyright, when I started the thread, I posted and quoted ONLY the first 3 three items on the article.

Then, as posts were made, I copied/quoted ONLY whatever was in the article to debate a certain post.

[Dirk]

Keep on keepin' on Carol. You bring a lot of stuff to our attention and I am greatful. :salute:

[Denver Native (Carol)]

Wow, are you actually defending McDaniels, then in the process denigrating the Broncos as a crappy franchise before he even got here?

The plain fact is... we were great on offense and shitty on defense before McD got here. Now we are average on offense and shitty on defense, with a MAJOR NET LOSS in the draft pick department. McD took a situation he could have remedied, and made it worse in many, many ways that will take 5 years to heal from. WOW.

PLEASE - I did NOT write the article :rolleyes:

[Northman]

It's different for each fan. A lot of fans want as many accolades as their team can get. Other fans have your thought process, others have Silk's, others have a mish mash.

Honestly a lot of times we get caught up in the debate or the 'history' and forget to look at the context.

My opinion is that Shanahan is still a great coach, even though I think he's kind of a tool. What got him fired was the GM and management part of his job/jobs/situation.

I don't expect a coach to ever win a Super Bowl. As much as we like to forget about it, winning a SB takes a ton of luck. The Saints got a ton of breaks just to get to the SB. The Colts had the luck of playing against the Bears, who may have had the worst SB team I've ever seen, barring only the Falcons. The Steelers were fortunate in 2005 that the Seahawks shot themselves in the foot and that the refs had a lot of questionable calls. Just examples off the top of my head.

Certain contexts demand more or less patience. McD's situation did not deserve as much patience as the Lions' head coach or even Spags in Saint Louis.

Personally, I do expect a coach to field competitive teams. At a certain point, I expect that the coach win some playoff games. That's why I can't stand Marvin Lewis, we get to the playoffs after two or three seasons of missing the cut and then we do nothing. Then, after making the post season, we fall apart and then repeat the process. In effect, we're not accomplishing or TRULY building towards anything.

If you hit that point, eventually there needs to be a change. I am not comparing Shanny, a HoF coach to ML in terms of success or overall skill so much as I am comparing Shanny's worst run to ML's...friggen tenure.

As far as the franchise falling off, I don't think it was falling off in the terms of being competitive or being respectable so much as it fell off as an elite franchise in terms of competing for Super Bowls.


Well said.