PDA

View Full Version : Apparently We're Going To Be Stuck With Brian Xanders As GM!



Cugel
01-01-2011, 02:16 PM
The Broncos seem set to announce "new responsibilities" for Broncos GM Brian Xanders sometime in the next week (after the season officially ends for the team).

Here's the Xanders puff-piece from Mile High Sports:

You should read this carefully, because it gives the career history of the guy who will be most responsible for the Broncos success or failure over the next 3 years or so.

Personally, I am beyond frustrated with this decision. I think this proves beyond a doubt that Bowlen is SENILE and hopelessly in the grip of Joe Ellis -- who more than any single individual is responsible for inflicting the McDaniels era on us.

But, the article is interesting if true (we have to know THIS IS SPIN PEOPLE! It's easy after the fact to blame McDaniels for every personnel failure, but we don't know whether Xanders REALLY wanted Clay Matthews or Brian Orakpo instead of Robert Ayers or whether that's simply a cover up in hindsight and spin by Xanders or his supporters.

If TRUE, then it's encouraging. But, no more than that:


Pat Bowlen and Joe Ellis agreed it wasn’t necessary to throw out the baby with the bathwater. It’s expected that Xanders will not only keep his title during the Broncos offseason front office shakeup, but will inherit the decision-making powers from Josh McDaniels. (http://milehighsports.com/article.asp?id=2066399)

There are many who believe Bowlen should do what Blank [in Atlanta where Xanders was previously before coming to the Broncos] did – clean house. But if success has 1,000 fathers, failure is an orphan. McDaniels has been kicked out of the house and many believe Xanders should be the next to go.

[Translation: Most NFL insiders think the Broncos desperately need a completely NEW organization from top to bottom, and not a new name plate for the Titanic!]

It’s unfortunate that so many people who don’t know what really happened behind closed doors are ready to jump to conclusions about Xanders without knowing the full story. He played the good role of solider, which was enabled by Bowlen and Ellis. Very few know or believe that Xanders had different ideas on how to build this franchise.

[The problem with this is that we don't know if it's true or not. This could be pure spin from the Xanders camp -- designed to molify fans who are demanding sweeping change.]

CONTENT REMOVED FOR VIOLATING ARTICLE POSTING GUIDELINES (http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=207433)


No one really knows if Xanders is a great personnel man because he’s never been given the opportunity to put his stamp on a draft or free agency. However, he does spend 90 percent of his day looking at film and evaluating talent.

[THIS is the key sentence in the entire piece: Xanders has ZERO experience actually running a draft or signing FAs! HE's NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE! So, after the MISERABLE FAILURE of ROOKIE Josh McDaniels -- we get another COMPLETE UNKNOWN in Xanders and we're supposed to be happy? Not even Ellis knows if Xanders will be able do the job or not!]

CONTENT REMOVED FOR VIOLATING ARTICLE POSTING GUIDELINES (http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=207433)



Xanders is being given his LEARNER's PERMIT to experiment with OUR team! Would you want a doctor who had never performed an operation before to try and remove your cancer?

This reminds me a LOT of the Matt Millen situation in Detroit. First, they fired the coach, but they kept the cancer in Matt Millen as GM. Here's where the Lions stand today:


Two years removed from the NFL's only 0-16 season, the Detroit Lions are poised to reach another subtle but significant milestone in their crawl back from the abyss that was the Matt Millen era.

The decision to keep Matt Millen cost the Lions about 5 or 6 years of utter futility! Let's hope Bowlen's senile dementia and Joe Ellis' cronyism doesn't equally doom the Broncos to ANOTHER few years of failure under Brian Xanders! :tsk:

P.S.: An unanswered question if this article is true: What the Hell Was Joe Ellis Toking? Why, after the failure of the experienced Mike Shanahan to be able to handle being GM PLUS coach, would Ellis insist on giving the utter ROOKIE Josh McDaniels that kind of responsibility? :mad:

Why isn't Joe Ellis' head on the chopping block after that monumental screwup?

BroncoJoe
01-01-2011, 02:21 PM
Funny how you highlight the statements that can make him look bad, and completely ignore the positive stuff.

I'll take a wait and see approach.

Denver Native (Carol)
01-01-2011, 02:34 PM
Funny how you highlight the statements that can make him look bad, and completely ignore the positive stuff.

I'll take a wait and see approach.

I will also take a wait and see approach. If what we have heard is true, NOT one person will be making a decision. This will be a TEAM effort. I believe Xander's main responsibility will be negotiating player's contracts. Will he - should he also have input into other areas - of course, but IMO, he will NOT have final say so in personnel decisions.

powderaddict
01-01-2011, 02:36 PM
The thing is no one has any idea how he will do.

It's a brave new world, and all we can do is watch and hope for the best.

chazoe60
01-01-2011, 02:37 PM
He didn't even get to do his job because of the megalomaniac McD, lets give him a chance before we throw him out. He'll also have Elway to lean on.

Dzone
01-01-2011, 02:37 PM
Wasnt Xanders at Atlanta when they went to their only superbowl? I dunno. I have heard him interviewed. He comes a cross as a guy who is confident and knows what he is doing. He did kind of avoid the Hillis question, but that might be due to perceived character issues he had with Hillis

Cugel
01-01-2011, 02:37 PM
Funny how you highlight the statements that can make him look bad, and completely ignore the positive stuff.

I'll take a wait and see approach.

It doesn't make him look "bad." It makes him look Totally Inexperienced! There's a difference!

If you needed brain surgery would you want a surgeon who was performing his FIRST brain surgery? He'd WATCHED other doctors and ASSISTED for years and PREPARED.

But, until he actually DOES IT FOR HIMSELF, nobody can say whether he's going to be a Great, Good, Mediocre, or Poor surgeon!

All I can say is: "I don't want Brian Xanders experimenting and "finding his way" with MY team!"

The Broncos are a disaster area with few if any talented players on defense -- (Champ Bailey is gone, Brian Dawkins is gone, that leaves Dumervil and DJ as the ONLY defensive starters worth keeping!)

We DESPERATELY need a GREAT Coach and ESPECIALLY a GREAT, not adequate, not "good" GM with real, PROVEN ability running a draft, and building a team.

A guy like Scott Pioli when he came to KC (notice the Chiefs now are in the playoffs as division winners)!

jhildebrand
01-01-2011, 02:40 PM
My position on Xanders has been clear: He is not as innocent as he would lead us all to believe!

He only distanced himself from McDaniels and the moves McDaniels made once McDaniels was fired. Not only after he was fired but when it became clear there could be a real shake up in the front office! Are we to believe he was so weak that he honestly admits that McDaniels found a way to supercede him? If so, that isn't the guy I want for GM. So either he was a willing accomplice with mcDaniels as had been reported, or he was too weak to do the job that his job title permitted him to do! What about that says he should be an empowered GM?

The argument is always that Xanders would have been fired by McD for even clarifying to the press that he was or was not on board with particular moves. I for one don't buy that because Xanders was here before McDaniels and by Ellis. Ellis would never allow for Xanders to be released by McDaniels. So why couldn't Xanders simply come out with some clarification sooner? Again, it seemed to happen when the Elway talks heated up!

Additionally, if Xanders was simply the "good soldier" than why bother having him as a GM in the first place? Afterall, they did give him the full GM title once the Goodmans were removed?

Xanders had complete control going into that first draft. The draft board had only 100 people on it! Remember, that is the draft where this team reached for Alphonso Smith and Richard QUinn!!! I don't believe McDaniels drafted 100% independent of Xanders analysis and research.

For me it seems readily apparent that Ellis, who is also distancing himself from McDaniels and isn't a "football guy," realizes the balance of power could easily shift once Elway is in the building and his only real allegience is Xanders.

I don't mind Ellis remaining in a business capacity as he had for so long. However, I think the current FO being suggested in the OP has a foundation of dysfunction based on opposing viewpoint which will only lead to constant disagreement.

I would prefer to see a complete shakeup. I think it is easier to get everybody on the same page if you hire all new people who already buy into the vision you want.

Cugel
01-01-2011, 02:41 PM
I will also take a wait and see approach. If what we have heard is true, NOT one person will be making a decision. This will be a TEAM effort. I believe Xander's main responsibility will be negotiating player's contracts. Will he - should he also have input into other areas - of course, but IMO, he will NOT have final say so in personnel decisions.

This article says he WILL be given responsibility over player personnel. Do you have information that 's different?

Who will have that authority if Xanders doesn't? Elway has said he's NOT qualified to be GM, and Joe Ellis is a business CRONY of Bowlen's.

Xanders apparently is the one who sits and breaks down film on prospects for 10 hours a day and scouts, and talks to agents and such.

If the Broncos are going to keep this IN HOUSE, then obviously Xanders has to be given the ultimate responsibility. We can't have the next COACH doing that!

That's what led to failure under Mike Shanahan, and total DISASTER under McDaniels!

Cugel
01-01-2011, 02:48 PM
My position on Xanders has been clear: He is not as innocent as he would lead us all to believe!

He only distanced himself from McDaniels and the moves McDaniels made once McDaniels was fired. Not only after he was fired but when it became clear there could be a real shake up in the front office!

The argument is always that Xanders would have been fired by McD for even clarifying to the press that he was or was not on board with particular moves. I for one don't buy that because Xanders was here before McDaniels and by Ellis. Ellis would never allow for Xanders to be released by McDaniels. So why couldn't Xanders simply come out with some clarification sooner? Again, it seemed to happen when the Elway talks heated up!

Additionally, if Xanders was simply the "good soldier" than why bother having him as a GM in the first place? Afterall, they did give him the full GM title once the Goodmans were removed?

Xanders had complete control going into that first draft. The draft board had only 100 people on it! Remember, that is the draft where this team reached for Alphonso Smith and Richard QUinn!!! I don't believe McDaniels drafted 100% independent of Xanders analysis and research.

For me it seems readily apparent that Ellis, who is also distancing himself from McDaniels and isn't a "football guy," realizes the balance of power could easily shift once Elway is in the building and his only real allegience is Xanders.

I don't mind Ellis remaining in a business capacity as he had for so long. However, I think the current FO being suggested in the OP has a foundation of dysfunction based on opposing viewpoint which will only lead to constant disagreement.

I would prefer to see a complete shakeup. I think it is easier to get everybody on the same page if you hire all new people who already buy into the vision you want.

I'd have to agree with this analysis. It's easy after the fact to have some sycophant write an article giving you the "Heckuva good job Brownie!" salute after the Broncos own version of Katrina. Perhaps the Broncos organization will give Xanders a "Freedom Medal" too! :coffee:

But, why DID the Broncos draft board have only 100 names on it? Was that McDaniels' decision? Did Xanders agree with it?

And WHY did Ellis insist on giving McDaniels the final say on players?

Remember they said "it sorta just happened" that McDaniels seized total power -- that wasn't the original intent.

Well, what's to prevent it from happening again with a new coach?

Did Joe Ellis tell Xanders to back off and let McDaniels make all the final draft decisions? Why?

Did Xanders simply acquiesce in McDaniels power grab? If so, why?

honz
01-01-2011, 02:51 PM
Where are you guys getting this stuff? Has Xanders even spoken since McD was fired?

My bad, nevermind...should have read article first.

Denver Native (Carol)
01-01-2011, 02:52 PM
It does NOT make sense to even bring in Elway, to join the upper echelon, if Xanders will be running the show - think about it.

jhildebrand
01-01-2011, 02:54 PM
Where are you guys getting this stuff? Has Xanders even spoken since McD was fired?

My bad, nevermind...should have read article first.

He's been on the Fan and the Ticket (radio shows). There were also some snippets and quotes mostly with the Elway articles.

As for the 100 names on the 2009 draft board and Xanders having complete control of the draft process GOING INTO (not necessarily the draft itself), I posted that article earlier in another thread.

UnderArmour
01-01-2011, 02:56 PM
You use the Matt Millen example but the Lions promoted Martin Mayhew, someone from within the organization, to overtake him. I'd say Mayhew made some good moves with their defensive line in stealing Corey Williams and Lawrence Jackson. So using that example here is actually making more of an argument in favor of promoting someone who has watched someone else's mistakes, like Xanders.

Cugel
01-01-2011, 02:59 PM
He's been on the Fan and the Ticket (radio shows). There were also some snippets and quotes mostly with the Elway articles.

As for the 100 names on the 2009 draft board and Xanders having complete control of the draft process GOING INTO (not necessarily the draft itself), I posted that article earlier in another thread.

I must have missed that other thread, could you post a link to the article?

jhildebrand
01-01-2011, 02:59 PM
You use the Matt Millen example but the Lions promoted Martin Mayhew, someone from within the organization, to overtake him. I'd say Mayhew made some good moves with their defensive line in stealing Corey Williams and Lawrence Jackson. So using that example here is actually making more of an argument in favor of promoting someone who has watched someone else's mistakes, like Xanders.

I'm curious because I don't know anything about Mayhew. What was his role with the organization prior to his promotion? Did he have some say or influence with Millen/the previous coach?

Cugel
01-01-2011, 03:03 PM
You use the Matt Millen example but the Lions promoted Martin Mayhew, someone from within the organization, to overtake him. I'd say Mayhew made some good moves with their defensive line in stealing Corey Williams and Lawrence Jackson. So using that example here is actually making more of an argument in favor of promoting someone who has watched someone else's mistakes, like Xanders.

I quoted the Matt Millen example because Millen STAYED after the previous coach was fired, yet it was HIS FAULT that the Lions had no talent!

The situation is NOT exactly the same here, because McDaniels clearly had the major say, if not the only say, on player personnel decisions. But, keeping the GM when they fired the coach is what screwed the Lions.

You just have to hope that:

1. If Xanders gets the power, he will NOT defer to the new coach. We need CLEAR LINES OF RESPONSIBILITY, not a "committee".

2. Xanders really IS as good at evaluating talent as he's advertised in this article. We don't know if the statements about Xanders NOT BEING AWARE of McDaniels decision to trade Hillis for example, are TRUE, or who the sources are, or whether this is just pro-Xanders SPIN put out by someone in the Broncos organization.

Denver Native (Carol)
01-01-2011, 03:04 PM
This article says he WILL be given responsibility over player personnel. Do you have information that 's different?

Who will have that authority if Xanders doesn't? Elway has said he's NOT qualified to be GM, and Joe Ellis is a business CRONY of Bowlen's.

Xanders apparently is the one who sits and breaks down film on prospects for 10 hours a day and scouts, and talks to agents and such.

If the Broncos are going to keep this IN HOUSE, then obviously Xanders has to be given the ultimate responsibility. We can't have the next COACH doing that!

That's what led to failure under Mike Shanahan, and total DISASTER under McDaniels!

Unless I am missing something, the article you are referring to was written by someone on Mile High Report. Correct me if I am wrong. If I am right, that person has no more "inside" information than I do right now, as to how everything will fall out, until announced by the Broncos.

Northman
01-01-2011, 03:06 PM
Well, there really wasnt any real choices to choose from. The fact is, i really want a more experienced guy as GM. Im just not sold on Xanders but the fact is i have no control over this. So basically, if he's going to be GM than i hope to god they improve immensely because the last couple of years have been trainwrecks at that position.

The Glue Factory
01-01-2011, 03:08 PM
Xanders had complete control going into that first draft. The draft board had only 100 people on it!

This statement has bugged me for a while now. So we had only 100 players on our draft board. 7 rounds for 32 teams equates to around 224 draftees (give or take compensatory picks and what-not.) So we had slightly less than HALF of the entire draft on our board. Seems to me like we weeded out the ones that weren't appropriate to the team. Anyone care to tell me why this is such a crime?

Northman
01-01-2011, 03:23 PM
This statement has bugged me for a while now. So we had only 100 players on our draft board. 7 rounds for 32 teams equates to around 224 draftees (give or take compensatory picks and what-not.) So we had slightly less than HALF of the entire draft on our board. Seems to me like we weeded out the ones that weren't appropriate to the team. Anyone care to tell me why this is such a crime?


I dont think your quite correct on your assumption there. From what ive read they didnt have a lot of time to scout all the players. At least according to McD. So what they did was focus on players they were interested in and went from there. Unfortuantely, when your unable to scout properly (which is why i felt they should of kept the Goodmans for at least 1 year) it means your not going to have a very good pool to choose from.

Dzone
01-01-2011, 03:23 PM
Well, its a "crime" depending on how many great players were left off that list of 100.

silkamilkamonico
01-01-2011, 03:24 PM
This statement has bugged me for a while now. So we had only 100 players on our draft board. 7 rounds for 32 teams equates to around 224 draftees (give or take compensatory picks and what-not.) So we had slightly less than HALF of the entire draft on our board. Seems to me like we weeded out the ones that weren't appropriate to the team. Anyone care to tell me why this is such a crime?

I'm sure if someone wanted to acutally invest in the time, they could go through every single one of our marginally terrible picks (and there seem to be quite a few), and look for someones who we passed on that would have been a much better pick.

As far as the Xanders staying in the GM role, this is just probably going to be another epic failure by this god forsaken organization that can't seem to get anything right the last few years.

Do the fanbase a favor and sell the team already Bowlen.

Cugel
01-01-2011, 03:26 PM
Unless I am missing something, the article you are referring to was written by someone on Mile High Report. Correct me if I am wrong. If I am right, that person has no more "inside" information than I do right now, as to how everything will fall out, until announced by the Broncos.

Well, I can't prove that Eric Goodman has "inside sources" who provided all the information about what draft choices Xanders favored and what he opposed, but the article CLAIMS lots of inside knowledge.

For instance the following are the factual assertions made by Goodman's article:

1. "The official announcement of a new job description will likely come next week and it’s well deserved. One NFL agent, who has done numerous deals with Xanders recently, told me, “Xanders doesn’t get enough credit.”

So, he interviewed at least 1 agent and Charlie Casserly, who is quoted in the article.

2. "How would you feel if you knew Xanders had no knowledge of McDaniels trading Peyton Hillis? It happened."

3. "How would you feel if you knew Xanders wanted Clay Matthews Jr. with the 18th overall pick in the 2009 draft? It happened."

4. "McDaniels was hell bent on getting former Patriots Jarvis Green and Laurence Maroney. Do you honestly think Xanders felt the same way? He didn’t."

Those are specific assertions that could only come from someone knowledgeable about Xanders views on these player moves. Unless this guy is just lying or making stuff up.

It LOOKS to me like a puff-piece that Xanders or someone close to Xanders put out to say "I'm not responsible for the screwups."

I don't claim this article is true and I don't know if this guy really is speaking to Xanders or someone close to Xanders, but he CLAIMS inside knowledge.

So, I posted the article. Take it or leave it. :coffee:

Lancane
01-01-2011, 03:40 PM
Though I am slightly dissapointed that he'll be the official General Manager, I have a small hope that it's on a probationary status. We need to appoint someone as the Assistant General Manager to groom under him just in case he is not the answer, and we have two solid candidates in Keith Kidd or Matt Russell, both are considered hot up-and-comers in the league. And hopefully Xanders can divulge his knowledge and better qualities onto them and they on him, making the two better at their jobs.

I'm willing to give Brian Xanders a shot, but albeit on a short-leash. We'll see how he does with such a talent depleted roster, not only via free agency but also in the draft. And if Xanders really wanted to get the support of the fans, then he needs to make some quick decisive moves such as signing Champ Bailey to a contract that will guarantee he'll finish his career in Denver and cut the likes of Perrish Cox from the roster, it would show that he has a clue and that he is indeed in charge.

Cugel
01-01-2011, 03:45 PM
Though I am slightly dissapointed that he'll be the official General Manager, I have a small hope that it's on a probationary status. We need to appoint someone as the Assistant General Manager to groom under him just in case he is not the answer, and we have two solid candidates in Keith Kidd or Matt Russell, both are considered hot up-and-comers in the league. And hopefully Xanders can divulge his knowledge and better qualities onto them and they on him, making the two better at their jobs.

I'm willing to give Brian Xanders a shot, but albeit on a short-leash. We'll see how he does with such a talent depleted roster, not only via free agency but also in the draft. And if Xanders really wanted to get the support of the fans, then he needs to make some quick decisive moves such as signing Champ Bailey to a contract that will guarantee he'll finish his career in Denver and cut the likes of Perrish Cox from the roster, it would show that he has a clue and that he is indeed in charge.

Those are all sensible suggestions, and we should also immediately cut Greene and Maroney as well.

But, none of that is likely to happen. Nor is there the slightest indication it will be on "probationary status." :coffee:

First of all, the Broncos front office will be cluttered enough as it is with Elway, Ellis, and Xanders, without adding another assistant GM to "groom".

As for signing Champ Bailey, that ship has sailed. He doesn't WANT to finish his career in Denver on a rebuilding team. He wants to go somewhere they have a chance to win a SB or two.

Remember he's been in the league for ten years but only ever played in 1 or 2 playoff games and NO trips to the SB with either the Redskins (who were horrible during his tenure) and the Broncos (who were better, but still didn't get it done).

Tned
01-01-2011, 03:45 PM
My position on Xanders has been clear: He is not as innocent as he would lead us all to believe!

He only distanced himself from McDaniels and the moves McDaniels made once McDaniels was fired. Not only after he was fired but when it became clear there could be a real shake up in the front office! Are we to believe he was so weak that he honestly admits that McDaniels found a way to supercede him? If so, that isn't the guy I want for GM. So either he was a willing accomplice with mcDaniels as had been reported, or he was too weak to do the job that his job title permitted him to do! What about that says he should be an empowered GM?

The argument is always that Xanders would have been fired by McD for even clarifying to the press that he was or was not on board with particular moves. I for one don't buy that because Xanders was here before McDaniels and by Ellis. Ellis would never allow for Xanders to be released by McDaniels. So why couldn't Xanders simply come out with some clarification sooner? Again, it seemed to happen when the Elway talks heated up!


No matter how many times you repeat it, the idea won't be any less ridiculous. There is no way that Xanders was going to approach the press and say, "I didn't agree with that trade". It's simply ridiculous to think he should have, and even more ridiculous to criticize him for not clarifyin his position to the press.

The Glue Factory
01-01-2011, 04:11 PM
I dont think your quite correct on your assumption there. From what ive read they didnt have a lot of time to scout all the players. At least according to McD. So what they did was focus on players they were interested in and went from there. Unfortuantely, when your unable to scout properly (which is why i felt they should of kept the Goodmans for at least 1 year) it means your not going to have a very good pool to choose from.

Now that I will agree with, but the castigation around the number 100 is ridiculous! Saying those 100 were poorly scouted is an entirely different argument.

Tned
01-01-2011, 04:17 PM
I dont think your quite correct on your assumption there. From what ive read they didnt have a lot of time to scout all the players. At least according to McD. So what they did was focus on players they were interested in and went from there. Unfortuantely, when your unable to scout properly (which is why i felt they should of kept the Goodmans for at least 1 year) it means your not going to have a very good pool to choose from.

McDaniels story changed from just after the '09 draft to around the 2010 draft.

After the '09 draft, he bragged about their 100 person draft board, claiming it was the New England way. You only put people on the board that you wanted on your team (or something like that) and then made the moves necessary to get those players.

He used this intentional short draft board as the reasoning behind the multiple trades to move up to get 'their' guy (Quinn, A. Smith, Brandstater, etc.).

I'm pretty sure, It was a year later, losing 8 or the last 10, Smith looking like a flop, etc. that McDaniels revised his story to one of "we didn't have time...."

Denver Native (Carol)
01-01-2011, 04:23 PM
Some things from this article:


While most teams list all potential picks on their draft board, with grades on everyone from potential first-round picks to rookie free agents, teams such as the Patriots, Broncos and Chiefs work from a much shorter list. Players who don't fit the team's framework, on or off the field, are removed from consideration before the draft starts.

The result is a far smaller pool of players from which to choose. Last April, the Broncos made 10 selections from a board that included fewer than 100 names. The draft included 256 players, and some teams had more than 300 names on their board.

full article - http://www.denverpost.com/premium/broncos/ci_14860818

bcbronc
01-01-2011, 04:31 PM
I would have preferred a GM with a proven track record, just to ensure some stability. This franchise does not need to find itself in need of another regime change in a year or two. :understatement:

on the other hand, bringing Xanders back DOES bring some stability. It means the scouting etc done all season doesn't have to be thrown out the window. Hopefully it's not just so he can be the "good soldier" with the new coach.

But something Cugel can't seem to grasp, even the best brain surgeon in the world had to do his/her first surgery at some point. Same with the all-time best NFL personal people...had to start somewhere. And proven GM's have gone on to fail at their next job. Nothing is guaranteed, and while I'd prefer to have an experience GM (and let the GM have the final call on personal AND head coach), there's no reason to get silly about it.

HORSEPOWER 56
01-01-2011, 04:40 PM
I'm not going to fillet Xanders over the McD debacle because he was just the cap and contract guy. I don't even hold too much blame for Pat Bowlen. Sure, it's his franchise, but it's obvious that in his reduced state of mental capacity (spoken: senility or Alzheimer's or whatever) he looked to someone else to help him run the organization. That someone is Joe Ellis. I still and will continue to fault Joe Ellis for pretty much everything. Everyone knows who is really pulling the strings right now.

I don't have any real "bad feelings" for Xanders but that sure as shit doesn't mean I want him to be the GM. I just don't trust him, period. Once again, who really cares what I think, but those are my :2cents: .

dogfish
01-01-2011, 05:20 PM
This blows. I think we're probably in for a cluster**** of biblical proportions. Do I "know" that Xanders can't get it done? Of course not. Am I saying he's incapable of success? Nope. I think our odds ****in SUCK, though.

Not trying to suggest that my opinion is any "better" than anyone else's, but I am truly baffled that Broncos fans seem to be cool with this. I don't get the whole "let's give him a chance!" mentality-- at all. Why?? Just because he's here now, and one dude is as good as another?

:noidea:

I don't understand why people wouldn't want us to go out and do our best to identify and choose from the absolute very best candidates available, instead of just going with whoever happens to be here now because "you never know what he can do if you don't give him a chance," or some similar rationale. I mean, we never gave Slowick the chance to be the head coach or BVP the chance to be the starting QB "to see what he can do."

I can't find any evidence suggesting that Xanders has ever had a big role in personnel decisions or running a draft, but if you DO believe he played a significant role in either the fiasco that happened while he was in Atlanta or our recent trainwreck, then why the hell would you want him to have more power here? Even if he was just along for the ride, wouldn't you want someone who learned from a more successful model? I want a senior executive from a top program like Baltimore, Pittsburgh or Indy. Why not shoot for the best? Going with Xanders looks like the definition of "settling" to me, and IMO the motive on the team's part is pretty obvious.

They probably get to save a little bit of cash compared to hiring a legit top exec, and Ellis gets to keep a flunky in place who isn't likely to challenge him. The appeal to the fans isn't clear to me, though. And I suspect that some people who are saying "why not give him a chance?" right now are going to be seriously pissed off when we hire some third rate retread hack of a head coach.

I suppose we'll see. Maybe I'm completely wrong about all this, and I certainly hope I am. I don't think it's gonna end well, though. Feels to me like we're going with a wing and a prayer instead of making our very best effort by trying to get the best people possible. Seriously, Xanders is the best they could dig up? "New GM and front office-- same as the old one." As I've said before, IMO this seems a little bit like promoting the First Mate of the Exxon Valdez to Captain. Sucks.

TXBRONC
01-01-2011, 11:45 PM
Some things from this article:



full article - http://www.denverpost.com/premium/broncos/ci_14860818

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at Carol. All that article says is that we followed the New England model with McDaniels as the head there is nothing says we'll continue to do that now that he's gone.

Lancane
01-01-2011, 11:57 PM
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at Carol. All that article says is that we followed the New England model with McDaniels as the head there is nothing says we'll continue to do that now that he's gone.

McDaniels had a head? Who knew? :lol:

TXBRONC
01-02-2011, 12:11 AM
McDaniels had a head? Who knew? :lol:

You've teed it up for saying something really crass but I'll refrain. ;)

Lancane
01-02-2011, 01:20 AM
You've teed it up for saying something really crass but I'll refrain. ;)

I was leaving it open for that exact purpose...let's be honest, his wife wanted plowed between the sheets by Hillis, so obviously? And we could talk about the head that holds that thing that called a brain, but I think he shit his out somewhere between Foxboro and here!

:lol: