View Full Version : Your confidience that things are going well this offseason based on what youre hearing?
Hmmm ... I don't think the way I feel is covered in the polls ....
I think firing Shanahan was a big mistake ... Bowlen flinched at the pressure ... but now that it's happened, I have confidence that they will choose a very good coaching staff, specially to address our defensive woes.
Hmmm ... I don't think the way I feel is covered in the polls ....
I think firing Shanahan was a big mistake ... Bowlen flinched at the pressure ... but now that it's happened, I have confidence that they will choose a very good coaching staff, specially to address our defensive woes.
I dont. I think one of the underlying issues with having a couple of minority coaches on the radar is that its possible that they come more cheaply than non-minority coaches due to the fact that they feel obligated to advance their cause (ie that there should be more black head coaches). Ive heard it mentioned in a couple of different places that Bowlen is trying to hire a coach on the cheap, in spite of claiming he wanted a coach who is "all 10s" and "will help him win a Super Bowl" at his press conference. But they keep spinning this by suggesting that finding the right coach comes down to the all important interview and not whats on their resume. Theyre saying what matters most is who tap dances best in interviews.
Theres just too much wrong with how this has been going.
Requiem / The Dagda
01-10-2009, 08:41 PM
I think that Bowlen and the Broncos Brass are working their ass off in order to get this team back into Super Bowl contenders. I obviously have my preferences in regards to coaches and how I'd like to see the staff develop, but I'm confident they'll do a good job. I just think fans need to be realistic. I see a lot of unrealistic talk here, a lot of false dilemmas and ultimatums being put out there in regards to the upcoming hiring of coaches, the draft and free agency.
It reminds me of the "spoiled" thread Tned started a long time ago back on Mania, and I really think it bears repeating.
At any case, we're one of the best organizations in all of pro football. We should be glad Bowlen and Company are working as hard as they are and bringing in as many candidates to see what is the best direction for this franchise. I do not blindly trust their judgment, but I know that they have a lot more of a clue how to run a football franchise and be successful than I am.
Lets just hope the coaches we hire and who they bring along with them can get the team, the ownership and fans a Super Bowl in the near future.
I don't expect everything to be fixed in a year. I don't expect every need we have to be addressed through free agency or the draft; but I do expect they'll bust their rears in order to do so. I think they've done a great job so far.
This is going to be a helluva off-season. Strap into the rollercoaster guys. Off we go.
I think that Bowlen and the Broncos Brass are working their ass off in order to get this team back into Super Bowl contenders. I obviously have my preferences in regards to coaches and how I'd like to see the staff develop, but I'm confident they'll do a good job. I just think fans need to be realistic. I see a lot of unrealistic talk here, a lot of false dilemmas and ultimatums being put out there in regards to the upcoming hiring of coaches, the draft and free agency.
It reminds me of the "spoiled" thread Tned started a long time ago back on Mania, and I really think it bears repeating.
At any case, we're one of the best organizations in all of pro football. We should be glad Bowlen and Company are working as hard as they are and bringing in as many candidates to see what is the best direction for this franchise. I do not blindly trust their judgment, but I know that they have a lot more of a clue how to run a football franchise and be successful than I am.
Lets just hope the coaches we hire and who they bring along with them can get the team, the ownership and fans a Super Bowl in the near future. And if it doesnt start out well, I hope the fans make the next coach so miserable that he wishes he never interviewed for the job.
I don't expect everything to be fixed in a year. I don't expect every need we have to be addressed through free agency or the draft; but I do expect they'll bust their rears in order to do so. I think they've done a great job so far.
This is going to be a helluva off-season. Strap into the rollercoaster guys. Off we go.
I do. If Bowlen isnt going to go with the most qualified candidate, the guy he picks better have his s**t together out of the starting blocks. And if it doesnt start out well, I hope the fans make him so miserable that he wishes he never would have interviewed for the job.
Requiem / The Dagda
01-10-2009, 08:46 PM
Well, Lex. This is where I'll disagree with you. I just things will take time. What is sufficient for you? I think if we can get a playoff birth next year, that is a step in the right direction. What would be considered a success for you in regards to 2009? Good thread, BTW.
UnderArmour
01-10-2009, 09:06 PM
Bottom line is this football team crumbled down the stretch for what seemed like every year since Elway retired. That's unacceptable. This football team needed a new identity. It was the right decision even if it wasn't the most popular one. And there is no way that it's a coincidence we start what seems like 6-2 every year then finish around 8-8, 10-6, 9-7. No way. It was part of our identity as a franchise.
Slick
01-10-2009, 09:33 PM
I'd like to participate, but there isn't an option that fits my feelings. A part of me thinks the firing was a mistake, a part of me thinks it was time to move on. I still think Bowlen and Co will hire the guy they think can bring success to Denver, and I don't think cost will be an issue.
Lex, I think you need to lower your expectations a little bit. It's perfectly okay to want your team to be successful, but there's such a void in talent on the defensive side of the ball, one off-season won't fix it no matter who the coach is IMO.
EDIT: I'd like to see this type of thread after the coach is actually hired, and the draft and the free agency signing period are over.
I'd like to participate, but there isn't an option that fits my feelings. A part of me thinks the firing was a mistake, a part of me thinks it was time to move on. I still think Bowlen and Co will hire the guy they think can bring success to Denver, and I don't think cost will be an issue.
Lex, I think you need to lower your expectations a little bit. It's perfectly okay to want your team to be successful, but there's such a void in talent on the defensive side of the ball, one off-season won't fix it no matter who the coach is IMO.
EDIT: I'd like to see this type of thread after the coach is actually hired, and the draft and the free agency signing period are over.
If you dont hire the most qualified coach, you'd better deliver out of the gate. And if you dont, all bets are off. If you dont hire the most qualified guy, "lack of talent" no longer is an excuse for Bowlen. Besides, it was never really established that it was more the talent than it was Slowiks gemischtes scemes.
Slick
01-10-2009, 09:46 PM
If you dont hire the most qualified coach, you'd better deliver out of the gate. And if you dont, all bets are off. If you dont hire the most qualified guy, "lack of talent" no longer is an excuse for Bowlen. Besides, it was never really established that it was more the talent than it was Slowiks gemischtes scemes.
I think I get what you're saying here. Who do you feel is the most qualified candidate of the names we've seen thrown around?
BroncoWave
01-10-2009, 09:48 PM
If you dont hire the most qualified coach, you'd better deliver out of the gate. And if you dont, all bets are off. If you dont hire the most qualified guy, "lack of talent" no longer is an excuse for Bowlen. Besides, it was never really established that it was more the talent than it was Slowiks gemischtes scemes.
Seeing as Bowlen has been in those interview rooms and you haven't, I'll take his word on who the most qualified candidate is. I realize you are pissed because it's looking like your boy Spags won't get the job but there are other guys who are capable of coaching football. It's just flat out ridiculous to crucify someone who hasn't even had a chance to coach his first game just because you think he was the wrong choice.
I think I get what you're saying here. Who do you feel is the most qualified candidate of the names we've seen thrown around?
Spagnuolo...I think his resume speaks for itself and his expertise lines up with what we're weakest at. Not only that but what he is cited as saying about running the ball more is dead on. The defensive coaches theyre interviewing dont come close if you look at resumes and Denver shouldnt even be interviewing so many offensive coaches. The fact that Bowlen has fallen in love with McDaniels (if its true) is an indication to me that this is carry over from some falling out he had with Shanahan and that he wants to stick it to him by getting another offesive coach.
Seeing as Bowlen has been in those interview rooms and you haven't, I'll take his word on who the most qualified candidate is. I realize you are pissed because it's looking like your boy Spags won't get the job but there are other guys who are capable of coaching football. It's just flat out ridiculous to crucify someone who hasn't even had a chance to coach his first game just because you think he was the wrong choice.
Look at what happens on the field. The interview is a tap dance. What happens on the field is a greater reflection of expertise.
I think that Bowlen and the Broncos Brass are working their ass off in order to get this team back into Super Bowl contenders. I obviously have my preferences in regards to coaches and how I'd like to see the staff develop, but I'm confident they'll do a good job. I just think fans need to be realistic. I see a lot of unrealistic talk here, a lot of false dilemmas and ultimatums being put out there in regards to the upcoming hiring of coaches, the draft and free agency.
It reminds me of the "spoiled" thread Tned started a long time ago back on Mania, and I really think it bears repeating.
At any case, we're one of the best organizations in all of pro football. We should be glad Bowlen and Company are working as hard as they are and bringing in as many candidates to see what is the best direction for this franchise. I do not blindly trust their judgment, but I know that they have a lot more of a clue how to run a football franchise and be successful than I am.
Lets just hope the coaches we hire and who they bring along with them can get the team, the ownership and fans a Super Bowl in the near future.
I don't expect everything to be fixed in a year. I don't expect every need we have to be addressed through free agency or the draft; but I do expect they'll bust their rears in order to do so. I think they've done a great job so far.
This is going to be a helluva off-season. Strap into the rollercoaster guys. Off we go.
Great post. An objective perspective will show that in almost all aspects, the Broncos have improved ....
Total offense, red zone conversion .. rushing TDs .. and scoring (when we had healthy RBs), initial starting field position, OL pass protection, developing several receiver threats, better returns and return coverage, higher quality players from the draft; that's a ton of improvements from last season and prior seasons.
The only thing that was as bad or worse was the defense.
The only reason I'd fire Shanny is if he was going to stick with Slowick next season; if he was willing to hire someone else, like Capers, then that, to me, would be the better option.
Slick
01-10-2009, 09:57 PM
Spagnuolo...I think his resume speaks for itself and his expertise lines up with what we're weakest at. Not only that but what he is cited as saying about running the ball more is dead on. The defensive coaches theyre interviewing dont come close if you look at resumes and Denver shouldnt even be interviewing so many offensive coaches. The fact that Bowlen has fallen in love with McDaniels (if its true) is an indication to me that this is carry over from some falling out he had with Shanahan and that he wants to stick it to him by getting another offesive coach.
I noticed your avatar right after I posted that question. I can't argue your point, but I'm also trying to be open minded about it. I know it's been said already, but if Bowlen decides to hire a coach with an offensive background, it doesn't mean that the new coach can't hire a competent coordinator to run the defense. Hopefully we'll find out sooner rather than later. I'm ready to throw my support behind the new coach, and I'm sick of waiting.
I noticed your avatar right after I posted that question. I can't argue your point, but I'm also trying to be open minded about it. I know it's been said already, but if Bowlen decides to hire a coach with an offensive background, it doesn't mean that the new coach can't hire a competent coordinator to run the defense. Hopefully we'll find out sooner rather than later. I'm ready to throw my support behind the new coach, and I'm sick of waiting.
OK, if they hire an offensive coach then that means firing Shanahan was less about fixing the Broncos and more about getting rid of Shanahan...because if they hire an offensive minded head coach, that means Bowlen has to make two signigicant hires in order to begin resolving the biggest problem.
If you dont hire the most qualified coach, you'd better deliver out of the gate. And if you dont, all bets are off. If you dont hire the most qualified guy, "lack of talent" no longer is an excuse for Bowlen. Besides, it was never really established that it was more the talent than it was Slowiks gemischtes scemes.
We had ends that weren't effective, and very important MLB/SS/FS triangle in the middle was made up of a career special teamer and cast offs from other teams.
Anyone that watched the Broncos games should have been able to 'establish' the "lack of talent" on defense.
Well, Lex. This is where I'll disagree with you. I just things will take time. What is sufficient for you? I think if we can get a playoff birth next year, that is a step in the right direction. What would be considered a success for you in regards to 2009? Good thread, BTW.
I think it is nearly impossible to predict a record, until we see who the coaches are (which also means which offensive, if any, are retained) and how significant the offensive schme changes are.
Do we fill the handful of holes in a 4-3, or switch to a 3-4.
There are just too many questions. Based on the fact that I think that if the offensive scheme and coaches are left in place, that the Broncos should have one of the top offenses in football, combined with the fact that I believe we are only 5 position upgrades (not people, positions) away from being at least a solid defense, I think anything less than 9-7 would be a disspointment, and making the playoffs should be realistic.
However, if we fire those coaches that Bowlen is going to encourage the new HC to keep, and we switch the offensive scheme, plus overhaul the defense, all bets are off. We could be in for a 4-6 win season.
We had ends that weren't effective, and very important MLB/SS/FS triangle in the middle was made up of a career special teamer and cast offs from other teams.
Anyone that watched the Broncos games should have been able to 'establish' the "lack of talent" on defense.
I think it is nearly impossible to predict a record, until we see who the coaches are (which also means which offensive, if any, are retained) and how significant the offensive schme changes are.
Do we fill the handful of holes in a 4-3, or switch to a 3-4.
There are just too many questions. Based on the fact that I think that if the offensive scheme and coaches are left in place, that the Broncos should have one of the top offenses in football, combined with the fact that I believe we are only 5 position upgrades (not people, positions) away from being at least a solid defense, I think anything less than 9-7 would be a disspointment, and making the playoffs should be realistic.
However, if we fire those coaches that Bowlen is going to encourage the new HC to keep, and we switch the offensive scheme, plus overhaul the defense, all bets are off. We could be in for a 4-6 win season.
No, the 10 yard cushions and poor scheming undermined the pass rush.
OK, if they hire an offensive coach then that means firing Shanahan was less about fixing the Broncos and more about getting rid of Shanahan...because if they hire an offensive minded head coach, that means Bowlen has to make two signigicant hires in order to begin resolving the biggest problem.
The two things "fixing the broncos" and "getting rid of Shanahan" aren't mutually exclusive.
While I know for many it is hard to take another at face value and assume honesty, but it is very possible that Bowlen felt it was time for a change. Felt the message had gotten stale, and that routines needed to change.
It doesn't mean that he thinks the replacement will be 'better' than Shanahan, but that the team need a change. A new message, new philosophy.
As Bowlen said, the Broncos will be lucky to get a good that is as 'good' as Shanahan (or something like that).
The two things "fixing the broncos" and "getting rid of Shanahan" aren't mutually exclusive.
While I know for many it is hard to take another at face value and assume honesty, but it is very possible that Bowlen felt it was time for a change. Felt the message had gotten stale, and that routines needed to change.
It doesn't mean that he thinks the replacement will be 'better' than Shanahan, but that the team need a change. A new message, new philosophy.
As Bowlen said, the Broncos will be lucky to get a good that is as 'good' as Shanahan (or something like that).
Save that crap for someone else. That doesnt address where Im coming from at all.
No, the 10 yard cushions and poor scheming undermined the pass rush.
I know that is he anti-Slowick mantra, but you can't blame everything on the 10 yard cushion.
We never even got coverage sacks when our DBs covered receivers for 5-7 seconds. Our guys couldn't tackle, and all commentators/reporters seemed to agree the Broncos had the worst cover safeties in the league, and unfortunately they didn't make up for that deficiancy with their tackling skills.
The fact is the 10 yard cushion helped in the run defense, which was an emphasis, and did not 'undermine' the pass rush. Bly playing 10 yards off didn't make Doom get owned on every play.
Save that crap for someone else. That doesnt address where Im coming from at all.
Wow, that was an amazing response. Maybe you need to come from a more 'sensible' point of view.
Wow, that was an amazing response. Maybe you need to come from a more 'sensible' point of view.
Yeah, as if Im going to begin telling you what you want to hear. I dont care if you agree with it or not. Im not asking for permission, seeking approval, or apologizing. You already know this. Whats the point of even replying with this.
Yeah, as if Im going to begin telling you what you want to hear. I dont care if you agree with it or not. Im not asking for permission, seeking approval, or apologizing. You already know this. Whats the point of even replying with this.
Ditto brother:
Save that crap for someone else. That doesnt address where Im coming from at all.
Ditto brother:
Whatever, dude. Youre the one whe was all bent out of shape when someone called you out for clumsily jumping making assumptions. Dont get upset with me. Its at your feet.
Whatever, dude. Youre the one whe was all bent out of shape when someone called you out for clumsily jumping making assumptions. Dont get upset with me. Its at your feet.
Like clumsy assumptions about how a 10 yard cushion explained all the personnel deficiencies.... Gotcha.... :rolleyes:
If we get McDaniels-Capers, I just hope Capers won't be Jim Bates II. Well, I hope none of them become Jim Bates II.
If we hire a coach soon, can the defense start the offseason extra extra early to work on the new schemes, or is it against NFL rules? I'd like them to get a big head start over everyone.
spikerman
01-10-2009, 10:55 PM
Whatever the Broncos ultimately do, I hope they've been watching the playoffs and notice that tough, physical defenses are having the most success. Even Arizona is bringing it defensively.
Offense is exciting, but defense wins championships. I hope those involved in the coaching search keep that in mind.
Broncolingus
01-10-2009, 10:55 PM
Shanny didn't get it done as a GM...esp. on the defensive side...
Shanny likely wouldn't have 'given-up' control of both Coach/GM...
...no other choice left for Bowl-en and Co.
Didn't like to see Shanny leave the 'way' he did, but a change was necessary even if the next couple of years are 'worse.'
Although, I don't know what 'worse' could be...one playoff win in 10-years and NO playoffs the past last three years is pretty 'worse.'
If we hire a coach soon, can the defense start the offseason extra extra early to work on the new schemes, or is it against NFL rules? I'd like them to get a big head start over everyone.
Good question. I have always been a bit unclear about this. I know they can only have a certain number of organized practices, but then you hear them talk about Cutler and other players working with the coaches in the offseason.
spikerman
01-10-2009, 10:58 PM
Shanny didn't get it done as a GM...esp. on the defensive side...
Shanny likely wouldn't have 'given-up' control of both Coach/GM...
...no other choice left for Bowl-en and Co.
Didn't like to see Shanny leave the 'way' he did, but a change was necessary even if the next couple of years are 'worse.'
Although, I don't know what 'worse' could be...one playoff win in 10-years and NO playoffs the past last three years is pretty 'worse.'This almost sounds like you're saying that change even for the worse is better than the status quo. I'm not sure I agree. If you are saying that if the team is worse in the short term so that they can ultimately be better long term than I would agree with you.
I know what could be "worse". Having the Raiders and Chiefs finishing ahead of the Broncos.
spikerman
01-10-2009, 11:00 PM
Good question. I have always been a bit unclear about this. I know they can only have a certain number of organized practices, but then you hear them talk about Cutler and other players working with the coaches in the offseason.I believe the players can work out on their own (even with coaches) if it's informal, but I think the agreement with the Players' Association limits the amount, and establishes a time frame, for organized practices.
I believe the players can work out on their own (even with coaches) if it's informal, but I think the agreement with the Players' Association limits the amount, and establishes a time frame, for organized practices.
Good. They've got a ton of work to do. :cheers:
dogfish
01-10-2009, 11:31 PM
it's looking like mcdaniels is the top choice, which i'm not happy about. . . .
SmilinAssasSin27
01-10-2009, 11:45 PM
Shanny didn't get it done as a GM...esp. on the defensive side...
Shanny likely wouldn't have 'given-up' control of both Coach/GM...
...no other choice left for Bowl-en and Co.
Didn't like to see Shanny leave the 'way' he did, but a change was necessary even if the next couple of years are 'worse.'
Although, I don't know what 'worse' could be...one playoff win in 10-years and NO playoffs the past last three years is pretty 'worse.'
exactly...but some folks keep their blinders on. The world is black and white for some. In their eyes, there is only 1 reason and 1 solution. Nothing else can possibly make sense.
SmilinAssasSin27
01-10-2009, 11:48 PM
The thing is, what we are hearing is ikely 90% crap. A bunch of dudes here took what Blue said and are running w/ it like it's ysterdays USA Today. A handful of otehrs are goin off a Mort report which was mis-diagnosed. The rest of what we hear comes from Schefter and US. None of us know what the hell is really goin on. Nor should we. We have no say. Let's leave it to those who actually know.
Lonestar
01-11-2009, 12:57 AM
The thing is, what we are hearing is ikely 90% crap. A bunch of dudes here took what Blue said and are running w/ it like it's ysterdays USA Today. A handful of otehrs are goin off a Mort report which was mis-diagnosed. The rest of what we hear comes from Schefter and US. None of us know what the hell is really goin on. Nor should we. We have no say. Let's leave it to those who actually know.
your preaching to the choir. amen brother..
G_Money
01-11-2009, 01:10 AM
If I had to call it right now, and the lead horse of McD and Capers crosses the line first, I'd have to say I find that combination very intriguing.
You'd have a head coach who's brand new at his job, but who has a 2-time head coach and master defensive coordinator to lean on.
The new head coach is also very good with QBs and has some flair for offense. We'd see if he's willing to keep on some current Broncos coaches, but there are worse options.
I would like Spagnuolo. I would think he would try to pull McDermott from the Eagles to be his DC, since his Giants coaches almost certainly would not come with, with maybe one exception.
So, even though I really like Spagnuolo, would I be more comfortable with a HC with no experience (Spags), a DC with no experience (McDermott) and the hope that they can retain Bates?
Or would I rather get Capers in here along with our new HC, and let Dom give him someone to lean on?
I dunno if McDaniels would cost us Bates, but the inexperienced HC with massively experienced DC/assistant-HC backup has its merits for sure.
And since that's what I'm hearing is the front-runner, I can live with it. He must be a helluvan interview, but I adore the D that Capers runs. And the combo would be reminiscent of Reed/Johnson in Philly. Andy Reed was the young hotshot offensive mind with no real cred, and Johnson was the defensive guru with the long resume. That partnership worked out pretty well.
If we get a version of that, one that wins a Super Bowl hopefully while putting up tons of winning seasons, I can't really complain.
I mean, that is what Pat's looking for, right? The ingredients look right to me.
~G
The thing is, what we are hearing is ikely 90% crap. A bunch of dudes here took what Blue said and are running w/ it like it's ysterdays USA Today. A handful of otehrs are goin off a Mort report which was mis-diagnosed. The rest of what we hear comes from Schefter and US. None of us know what the hell is really goin on. Nor should we. We have no say. Let's leave it to those who actually know.
Totally agreed. Also, none of us know whether any of these candidates will make a good coach...there have been plenty of great coordinators that have been busts as head coaches...Mike Nolan and Rod Marineli come to mind. And just because we hire a head coach with an offensive background, it doesn't mean that we can't bring in a good DC and/or better defensive talent.
Shazam!
01-11-2009, 02:39 AM
I'm fine with Shanahan's dismissal. 24-24 in 3 seasons, and in a year when the division was given to them on a platter, to fail miserably to 8-8 SD is a disgrace. People talk about Norv 'Coffee Cake' Turner how he sucked and is nothing comapred to Shanny. Well, SD is playing in the Divisionals when they were left for dead. He has done what I don't believe Shanny could ever do. Shanahan couldn't rally the troops. He couldn't motivate this group if his life depended on it, and I don't wanna hear it's all the injuries either. As the vet leaders went (Lynch, Al, Rod, etc) and the youngsters came in, so did the standard of the Broncos that rubbed off on others I think.
Getting shellacked at home by the Raiders this year reminded me of the 1994 game when Jeff Hostetler looked like Joe Montana in a 48-16 massacre, then going to Buffalo for yet another pasting is eerily similar, though that was early in the 1994 year.
I said this before. If Shanny stayed another season and Denver went 6-10 next year, Cutler regressed, the defense the same or worse and Shanahan was fired, people here would STILL be saying it was a mistake! One excuse would be, as I have already read, 'Denver had a murderous schedule,' or 'Cutler sucks.' Gimme a break.
This isn't the second departure of John Elway for cryin' out loud. A change was unfortunately necessary. Denver needs a new identity on the field.
Shanahan has become complacent not worrying about job security I think. He has not evolved. There have been horrendous drafts, though some have improved recently. Terrible FAs. The guy can't even read Email, use text messages or a Blackberry. He cannot be a motivator (It's been said here time and time again.) He is still in the 90's.
These are not the glory days. It is time to move on. As I said I think he should have retired when John Elway retired, and say "My job is done here. I set out to win Championships here and we did. The Broncos are better now than when I arrived." Kubiak probably would've taken over (Belichick was available too at the time, imagine that) and we'd all be happy with two Championships fresh in our minds.
I am looking forward to the future. I expect McDaniels to be named next week, and I'll be VERY happy with that. I look forward to the Draft and seeing what he will be doing. This can be one of the most exciting offseasons we have seen in awhile. barring major changes in the AFC West, it is extremely possible this team can be a playoff team in 2009, and I'm not being a homer by saying that. All we need is a Coach to rally the troops and even a middling NFL defense. Barring injuries to Cutler and offense (I hope McD or whoever looks at the S&C regime,) Denver's future looks bright.
Don't worry. Denver has been here before. This is just a new era for the Broncos. I trust Pat Bowlen. He wants this team to win even more than we do.
If I had to call it right now, and the lead horse of McD and Capers crosses the line first, I'd have to say I find that combination very intriguing.
You'd have a head coach who's brand new at his job, but who has a 2-time head coach and master defensive coordinator to lean on.
The new head coach is also very good with QBs and has some flair for offense. We'd see if he's willing to keep on some current Broncos coaches, but there are worse options.
I would like Spagnuolo. I would think he would try to pull McDermott from the Eagles to be his DC, since his Giants coaches almost certainly would not come with, with maybe one exception.
So, even though I really like Spagnuolo, would I be more comfortable with a HC with no experience (Spags), a DC with no experience (McDermott) and the hope that they can retain Bates?
Or would I rather get Capers in here along with our new HC, and let Dom give him someone to lean on?
I dunno if McDaniels would cost us Bates, but the inexperienced HC with massively experienced DC/assistant-HC backup has its merits for sure.
And since that's what I'm hearing is the front-runner, I can live with it. He must be a helluvan interview, but I adore the D that Capers runs. And the combo would be reminiscent of Reed/Johnson in Philly. Andy Reed was the young hotshot offensive mind with no real cred, and Johnson was the defensive guru with the long resume. That partnership worked out pretty well.
If we get a version of that, one that wins a Super Bowl hopefully while putting up tons of winning seasons, I can't really complain.
I mean, that is what Pat's looking for, right? The ingredients look right to me.
~G
Of the candidates talked about, i think McDaniels is the best choice. The reason is that I think we have to first ensure that our strength remains a strength. In theory, McDaniels comes in with a proven offensive scheme that our personnel should do well in. I would love to see him keep Bates and Turner, and maybe Dennison, and create a hybrid of what Denver did before and what NE has done, but I can live with him simply implementing the NE offense here.
On defense, I think the whole Capers thing is still an unkown. The site that reported that, reported in one article that Garret wanted Capers and in another that McDaniels did. So, did they both publicly state they wanted Capers or did the site get something wrong? So, I consider the DC still to be a big unkown. Maybe Capers, but very possibly someone else.
Either way, the more I have thought about it, the more I think bringing in McDaniels to hopefully push our offense to the top both in yards, but also scoring/red zone, while getting a capable DC, not to mention 3-4 new players, to turn the defense around.
broncophan
01-11-2009, 09:54 AM
I think that Bowlen and the Broncos Brass are working their ass off in order to get this team back into Super Bowl contenders. I obviously have my preferences in regards to coaches and how I'd like to see the staff develop, but I'm confident they'll do a good job. I just think fans need to be realistic. I see a lot of unrealistic talk here, a lot of false dilemmas and ultimatums being put out there in regards to the upcoming hiring of coaches, the draft and free agency.
It reminds me of the "spoiled" thread Tned started a long time ago back on Mania, and I really think it bears repeating.
At any case, we're one of the best organizations in all of pro football. We should be glad Bowlen and Company are working as hard as they are and bringing in as many candidates to see what is the best direction for this franchise. I do not blindly trust their judgment, but I know that they have a lot more of a clue how to run a football franchise and be successful than I am.
Lets just hope the coaches we hire and who they bring along with them can get the team, the ownership and fans a Super Bowl in the near future.
I don't expect everything to be fixed in a year. I don't expect every need we have to be addressed through free agency or the draft; but I do expect they'll bust their rears in order to do so. I think they've done a great job so far.
This is going to be a helluva off-season. Strap into the rollercoaster guys. Off we go.
I agree.......the broncos are one of the better organizations..................but....if Bowlen and the gang are really THAT good.......why is the franchise in the position they are now......and why did they let it happen???....
Now here they are.....trying to find a better head coach than Shanahan..:confused:......good luck with that....
elsid13
01-11-2009, 10:00 AM
If we hire a coach soon, can the defense start the offseason extra extra early to work on the new schemes, or is it against NFL rules? I'd like them to get a big head start over everyone.
A new heach coach gets three to four additional practices camps to install the systems.
elsid13
01-11-2009, 10:03 AM
I believe the players can work out on their own (even with coaches) if it's informal, but I think the agreement with the Players' Association limits the amount, and establishes a time frame, for organized practices.
No HC get additional practice/mini-camps to install thier system.
Of the candidates talked about, i think McDaniels is the best choice. The reason is that I think we have to first ensure that our strength remains a strength. In theory, McDaniels comes in with a proven offensive scheme that our personnel should do well in. I would love to see him keep Bates and Turner, and maybe Dennison, and create a hybrid of what Denver did before and what NE has done, but I can live with him simply implementing the NE offense here.
On defense, I think the whole Capers thing is still an unkown. The site that reported that, reported in one article that Garret wanted Capers and in another that McDaniels did. So, did they both publicly state they wanted Capers or did the site get something wrong? So, I consider the DC still to be a big unkown. Maybe Capers, but very possibly someone else.
Either way, the more I have thought about it, the more I think bringing in McDaniels to hopefully push our offense to the top both in yards, but also scoring/red zone, while getting a capable DC, not to mention 3-4 new players, to turn the defense around.
If its McDaniels, then firing Shanahan was more about getting rid of a hall of fame offensive coach and not about fixing the Broncos.
If we get McDaniels-Capers, I just hope Capers won't be Jim Bates II. Well, I hope none of them become Jim Bates II.
Say what you want about Bates but if we would have let him have more time to install his system, we probably would have been in better shape this year.
SmilinAssasSin27
01-11-2009, 10:11 AM
If its McDaniels, then firing Shanahan was more about getting rid of a hall of fame offensive coach and not about fixing the Broncos.
or maybe it had a litle to do w/ his front office imcompetence and inability to assess defensive coaches or talent. But at least he put the right amount of emphasis on special teams, right? well...umm...Take the blinders off man. I liked the dude too, but damn. There were plenty of holes in his game.
atwater27
01-11-2009, 10:18 AM
If its McDaniels, then firing Shanahan was more about getting rid of a hall of fame offensive coach and not about fixing the Broncos.
No, it was about letting a guy go who had so much responsibility as HC and GM that his effectiveness was watered down. It was letting a guy go who hasn't really kept up with the changing trends, letting his offense turn antiquated and his defense completely disentegrate. And more importantly, it was about letting a guy go who had no intention whatsoever of figuring out himself that his once great leadership and ingenuity was now stale and had run it's course. Bowlen just did what Shanahan himself could not do. And both Shanahan and the Broncos will be better for it.
If its McDaniels, then firing Shanahan was more about getting rid of a hall of fame offensive coach and not about fixing the Broncos.
I fail to see the logic behind this line of thought.
No, it was about letting a guy go who had so much responsibility as HC and GM that his effectiveness was watered down. It was letting a guy go who hasn't really kept up with the changing trends, letting his offense turn antiquated and his defense completely disentegrate. And more importantly, it was about letting a guy go who had no intention whatsoever of figuring out himself that his once great leadership and ingenuity was now stale and had run it's course. Bowlen just did what Shanahan himself could not do. And both Shanahan and the Broncos will be better for it.
But the offense was on the upswing. Its a dominant running game away from being a great offense. The defense is where the real problem is. This is what needs to be fixed and this is what Shanahan refused to address by allowing Slowik to stay. The problem was not the offense. The firing of Shanahan was tied into his unwillingness to fix the defense because of the amount of power he had. So, in hiring McDaniels, Bowlen is doing nothing to fix the defense. Firing Shanahan was more about getting rid of Shanahan than it was abotu fixing the defense if Pat hires an offensive coach. Ive said it before and Ill say it again.
Medford Bronco
01-11-2009, 10:22 AM
If its McDaniels, then firing Shanahan was more about getting rid of a hall of fame offensive coach and not about fixing the Broncos.
It would be about fixing the Broncos as a team, including the front office
where Shanny the GM failed miseably through the years.
also to choke a 3 game lead with 3 to go has to be looked at as well.
and to get smoked at SD where they looked very unprepared for that game really
I fail to see the logic behind this line of thought.
Oh???
It would be about fixing the Broncos as a team, including the front office
where Shanny the GM failed miseably through the years.
also to choke a 3 game lead with 3 to go has to be looked at as well.
and to get smoked at SD where they looked very unprepared for that game really
http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=513768&postcount=51
Medford Bronco
01-11-2009, 10:24 AM
But the offense was on the upswing. Its a dominant running game away from being a great offense. The defense is where the real problem is. This is what needs to be fixed and this is what Shanahan refused to address by allowing Slowik to stay. The problem was not the offense. The firing of Shanahan was tied into his unwillingness to fix the defense because of the amount of power he had. So, in hiring McDaniels, Bowlen is doing nothing to fix the defense. Firing Shanahan was more about getting rid of Shanahan than it was abotu fixing the defense if Pat hires an offensive coach. Ive said it before and Ill say it again.
its not just about a running game, its about Cutler needing to take care of the ball so much better than he did the last two years. way too many
picks in the end zone or the red zone.
yardage is overrated as we saw in the baltimore game yesterday. its about being opportunistic and scoring when you get the chance.
not moving between the 20s and getting fgs or nothing out of drives
or maybe it had a litle to do w/ his front office imcompetence and inability to assess defensive coaches or talent. But at least he put the right amount of emphasis on special teams, right? well...umm...Take the blinders off man. I liked the dude too, but damn. There were plenty of holes in his game.
No one is arguing this. Again, the problem with the Broncos is the defense and hiring an offensive head coach means the move is more about replacing Shanahan and less about fixing the defense.
Just because Shanahan failed to make the defense the priority and fix it doesn't mean that all offensive minded coaches would do the same.
SmilinAssasSin27
01-11-2009, 10:26 AM
But the offense was on the upswing. Its a dominant running game away from being a great offense. The defense is where the real problem is. This is what needs to be fixed and this is what Shanahan refused to address by allowing Slowik to stay. The problem was not the offense. The firing of Shanahan was tied into his unwillingness to fix the defense because of the amount of power he had. So, in hiring McDaniels, Bowlen is doing nothing to fix the defense. Firing Shanahan was more about getting rid of Shanahan than it was abotu fixing the defense if Pat hires an offensive coach. Ive said it before and Ill say it again.
Agree 100% about the D, but that's bee the problem for 6 years. Ask the Colts. I'm sure they'd agree. Aside from Jake's final season, our D has been terrible. We've had plenty of drafts, schemes and FA acquisitions. The common thread is Shanny running things, assessing/SKIPPING defensive talent and failing to do his job IN IT'S ENTIRETY. Had he been demoted to JUST head coach, great. I get ya 10%, but that apparently was neveran option and it hurt the ENTIRE team. I like the O too, but we are 05 the Bengals right now. Are you really happy with that?
SmilinAssasSin27
01-11-2009, 10:28 AM
No one is arguing this. Again, the problem with the Broncos is the defense and hiring an offensive head coach means the move is more about replacing Shanahan and less about fixing the defense.
that is an assumption.
The defense has been "fixed" 4 times this decade WITH Shanny. How's that goin?
atwater27
01-11-2009, 10:28 AM
But the offense was on the upswing. Its a dominant running game away from being a great offense. The defense is where the real problem is. This is what needs to be fixed and this is what Shanahan refused to address by allowing Slowik to stay. The problem was not the offense. The firing of Shanahan was tied into his unwillingness to fix the defense because of the amount of power he had. So, in hiring McDaniels, Bowlen is doing nothing to fix the defense. Firing Shanahan was more about getting rid of Shanahan than it was abotu fixing the defense if Pat hires an offensive coach. Ive said it before and Ill say it again.
Shanahan was the HEAD COACH and as such had the responsibility for both offense and defense. He failed miserably on defense for at least 5 years.
The new HEAD COACH will be fired as well if they fail to manage BOTH sides of the ball competently.
He will also hire a DEFENSIVE COORDINATOR.
its not just about a running game, its about Cutler needing to take care of the ball so much better than he did the last two years. way too many
picks in the end zone or the red zone.
yardage is overrated as we saw in the baltimore game yesterday. its about being opportunistic and scoring when you get the chance.
not moving between the 20s and getting fgs or nothing out of drives
Once again, if the defense wouldnt have been so dreadful, the team would have been in the playoffs. Though, its entertaining to sit here and watch you play contrarian, its undeniable that the single biggest problem with the team was the defense.
that is an assumption.
The defense has been "fixed" 4 times this decade WITH Shanny. How's that goin?
??? Youre not even making a point.
Shanahan was the HEAD COACH and as such had the responsibility for both offense and defense. He failed miserably on defense for at least 5 years.
The new HEAD COACH will be fired as well if they fail to manage BOTH sides of the ball competently.
He will also hire a DEFENSIVE COORDINATOR.
OK, but what exactly is Pat accomplishing in fixing the defense if he has to make two significant hires before he finds someone that gives the defense vision? Once again, if Bowlen hires McDaniels as the head coach, this move was more about replacing Shanahan and less about fixing the defense.
SmilinAssasSin27
01-11-2009, 10:31 AM
??? Youre not even making a point.
How many DCs has Shanny hired and how many defensive minded drafts has Shanny overseen since 2000? But I think deep down inside you already knew my point.
Agree 100% about the D, but that's bee the problem for 6 years. Ask the Colts. I'm sure they'd agree. Aside from Jake's final season, our D has been terrible. We've had plenty of drafts, schemes and FA acquisitions. The common thread is Shanny running things, assessing/SKIPPING defensive talent and failing to do his job IN IT'S ENTIRETY. Had he been demoted to JUST head coach, great. I get ya 10%, but that apparently was neveran option and it hurt the ENTIRE team. I like the O too, but we are 05 the Bengals right now. Are you really happy with that?
I dont know...but I do know Im putting you on ignore. Youre just too scattered and flailing.
claymore
01-11-2009, 10:34 AM
OK, but what exactly is Pat accomplishing in fixing the defense if he has to make two significant hires before he finds someone that gives the defense vision? Once again, if Bowlen hires McDaniels as the head coach, this move was more about replacing Shanahan and less about fixing the defense.
If we get a defensive minded coach in here...... Do you trust Bates? I dont. I would rather have an Offensive head coach, and an awesome DC.
That gives us the best chance to win, and a little redundancy.
G_Money
01-11-2009, 10:40 AM
But the offense was on the upswing. Its a dominant running game away from being a great offense. The defense is where the real problem is. This is what needs to be fixed and this is what Shanahan refused to address by allowing Slowik to stay. The problem was not the offense. The firing of Shanahan was tied into his unwillingness to fix the defense because of the amount of power he had. So, in hiring McDaniels, Bowlen is doing nothing to fix the defense. Firing Shanahan was more about getting rid of Shanahan than it was abotu fixing the defense if Pat hires an offensive coach. Ive said it before and Ill say it again.
How is getting Dom Capers on defense not addressing the defensive problem? :confused:
When you hire a head coach you hire his staff, as well.
Shanahan's staff, particularly on defense, was a large part of his downfall.
Say you ask McDaniels, "Hey, we know you're an offensive head coach who can probably maintain much of our offensive effectiveness, but can you please outline how you will fix our defensive flaws, since that side of the ball is not your specialty?"
His response would certainly have to be something like, "I spent my first 3 years on the defensive side of the coaching staff of the Patriots, cutting my teeth on film study and preparation under Belichick and Crennel as well as coaching the defensive backs, then switched to the offensive side of the ball, but I've never forgotten my defensive roots or my contacts. I'll be bringing some former and current NE coaches over with me to implement an attacking 3-4 scheme that will require some personnel revisions, but which should better stop teams like the Chargers from destroying the Broncos at the line of scrimmage."
He doesn't have to be the defensive coordinator. He just has to be able to deliver a good one.
If he can't, then you're right, it might just a lesser version of Shanahan. But he knows at least two decent DCs in Crennel and Capers. I definitely prefer Capers. If he can deliver him as part of the package, what part of that is "doing nothing to fix the defense?"
Because it's not like Shanahan was gonna deliver Capers to us. He was gonna keep Slowik. And it's not like Spagnuolo or Morris or whomever has a better DC in their back pocket than Capers, either.
Let's wait and see the next guy's coaching staff before we claim a head-coaching hire with no DC experience is waving the Shanny-white-flag, hmm?
~G
If we get a defensive minded coach in here...... Do you trust Bates? I dont. I would rather have an Offensive head coach, and an awesome DC.
That gives us the best chance to win, and a little redundancy.
Jim Bates? Im not sure how I would feel about that with his son being a coach here. I can see there being some sticky situations arising from that arrangement. I guess Im more enamored with Spags specifically but I also think we should look at hiring a defensive minded coach even though Im in a agreement with many that the Tampa 2 is on the decline. Im not sure how old Bates is. I guess that would be a factor perhaps. I hadnt really thought of Bates though. I think the DC from Baltimore would be OK even though it means going to a 3-4. But either way, I was really disappointed that there were so many offensive coaches being interviewed and also that they were even considering Raheem Morris who has no experience as a coordinator.
How is getting Dom Capers on defense not addressing the defensive problem? :confused:
When you hire a head coach you hire his staff, as well.
Shanahan's staff, particularly on defense, was a large part of his downfall.
Say you ask McDaniels, "Hey, we know you're an offensive head coach who can probably maintain much of our offensive effectiveness, but can you please outline how you will fix our defensive flaws, since that side of the ball is not your specialty?"
His response would certainly have to be something like, "I spent my first 3 years on the defensive side of the coaching staff of the Patriots, cutting my teeth on film study and preparation under Belichick and Crennel as well as coaching the defensive backs, then switched to the offensive side of the ball, but I've never forgotten my defensive roots or my contacts. I'll be bringing some former and current NE coaches over with me to implement an attacking 3-4 scheme that will require some personnel revisions, but which should better stop teams like the Chargers from destroying the Broncos at the line of scrimmage."
He doesn't have to be the defensive coordinator. He just has to be able to deliver a good one.
If he can't, then you're right, it might just a lesser version of Shanahan. But he knows at least two decent DCs in Crennel and Capers. I definitely prefer Capers. If he can deliver him as part of the package, what part of that is "doing nothing to fix the defense?"
Because it's not like Shanahan was gonna deliver Capers to us. He was gonna keep Slowik. And it's not like Spagnuolo or Morris or whomever has a better DC in their back pocket than Capers, either.
Let's wait and see the next guy's coaching staff before we claim a head-coaching hire with no DC experience is waving the Shanny-white-flag, hmm?
~G
Thats just it. I wouldnt even be asking him this. McDaniels shouldnt even be part of the process. The defense was such a coaching shortcoming this past year that the initial hiring being one to give it vision should be paramount.
Not only that but McDaniels loves to pass the ball. Thats how they lost the Super Bowl. And might I add, thats also how Spagnuolo became McDaniels master.
atwater27
01-11-2009, 10:47 AM
OK, but what exactly is Pat accomplishing in fixing the defense if he has to make two significant hires before he finds someone that gives the defense vision? Once again, if Bowlen hires McDaniels as the head coach, this move was more about replacing Shanahan and less about fixing the defense.
The move was about replacing Shanahan for failing at several levels to
1. draft defensive talent
2. sign decent defensive free agents and don't overpay for hacks
3. Hire a defensive coordinator worth a shit.
And he wasn't even going to attempt to fire Slowik.
BroncoJoe
01-11-2009, 10:49 AM
Are you ever happy or optomistic Lex?
atwater27
01-11-2009, 10:49 AM
I dont know...but I do know Im putting you on ignore. Youre just too scattered and flailing.
LMAO!!! Lose an argument to him, put him on ignore.
The move was about replacing Shanahan for failing at several levels to
1. draft defensive talent
2. sign decent defensive free agents and don't overpay for hacks
3. Hire a defensive coordinator worth a shit.
And he wasn't even going to attempt to fire Slowik.
OK, so now youre agreeing with me. Good to know.
LMAO!!! Lose an argument to him, put him on ignore.
No clown. Can you read? I said exactly why I put him on ignore. He is all over the place and his points are rambling and flailing. Id rather respond to the people who, Im guessing, are saying the same things but are better at bottomlining. Additionally, if youre dont even realize when youre agreeing with me, how can you be qualified to know who is "winning" and "losing".
atwater27
01-11-2009, 10:57 AM
No clown. Can you read? I said exactly why I put him on ignore. He is all over the place and his points are rambling and flailing. Id rather respond to the people who, Im guessing, are saying the same things but are better at bottomlining.
I think we all know who deserves to be ignored, especially over SmilinAssassin.:salute:
atwater27
01-11-2009, 11:00 AM
Not all of us want Spag to be their daddy. At least not as badly as you.
I think we all know who deserves to be ignored, especially over SmilinAssassin.:salute:
Youre right. You dont even know what youre saying. Youre going on there also.
atwater27
01-11-2009, 11:02 AM
Youre right. You dont even know what youre saying. Youre going on there also.
You have proven yet again to be a winner.
Check out your poll.
Guess it didn't go the way you wanted it to.
Take your ball and go home.
G_Money
01-11-2009, 11:03 AM
Thats just it. I wouldnt even be asking him this. McDaniels shouldnt even be part of the process. The defense was such a coaching shortcoming this past year that the initial hiring being one to give it vision should be paramount.
Not only that but McDaniels loves to pass the ball. Thats how they lost the Super Bowl. And might I add, thats also how Spagnuolo became McDaniels master.
Hiring Marvin Lewis didn't give the Bengals a superior D. He didn't have a DC in his back pocket to make it work.
Hiring Romeo Crennel didn't give the Browns a good D. He didn't know another good DC either.
Hiring Mike Nolan didn't help the Niners get a good D. Once again...
You hire the package. Being an offensive or defensive genius at your last job doesn't mean you can put together the personnel to make it work at your new job, especially since you will most likely not be running the offense or defense yourself.
All 3 of those guys had world-class defensive credentials, and their defenses have sucked. Their teams have wallowed in leaderless mediocrity or worse.
Hiring a guy who loves to pass, and has had ridiculous success passing, and has done it with a HOF QB and a journeyman QB, is not the worst thing in the world when we ALSO have a very good QB and weapons but no running game.
Of course, NE was also 4th in the league in rushing attempts and 6th in yards this year - he doesn't COMPLETELY hate the run...
The idea of hiring McDaniels isn't the most ludicrous thing in the world, lex. It's just an alternate path. If you want to make sure you have both sides of the ball covered, you can either hire a defensive-minded HC who won't ruin our potentially high-powered offense with his OC choice and who can also pick a DC worth his salt to help us...
Or you hire the offensive-minded HC to help safeguard what you've already built, believing that he has an in with a great defensive mind to fix what Shanahan's offensive mind couldn't - the defense.
Capers invented zone-blitzing. Pretty much literally invented it in the USFL. He and Lebeau worked it out for the Steelers in the early 90s. Lebeau is still using an offshoot of it now.
Why would I think that the guy who can deliver me the defense that the Steelers have used on and off for 15 years to cut up every offense in the NFL is a bad thing?
I don't need McDaniels to have tons of defense on his resume. I need him to be able to deliver it on the field. If he can't, then he's the wrong guy.
If he can, he could still be the wrong guy, but at least we have a better shot at getting this fixed that we did with Shanahan and his defensive retreads and retards.
I'm still waiting to see it, I guess. Hiring Dom Capers as DC is a great move IMO. In his past two shots, hiring Dom as HC has not been good. Spaognuolo could always turn into Capers as HC...there are no safe bets here.
I want to see the dice land before I call BS, y'know?
~G
SmilinAssasSin27
01-11-2009, 11:04 AM
Shanny's AWESOME defensive resume this decade:
2001
Rd 1-Willie Middlebrooks OVER Kyl Van Den Bosch, Ken Lucas, Kris Jenkins, Shaun Rogers
Rd 2-Paul Toviessi
2002
Rd 1- Ashlie Lelie OVER Ed Reed, Charles Grant, Lito Sheppard
2003
Rd 2-Terry Pierce OVER Anquin Bolden, Osi Unemyura (sp?)
2004
DJ and Tatum...no complaints there
2005
3 CBs all under 5'10" and Maurice Clarett when there was more defensive tlent available after round 3
2006
Offensive draft, no complaints
2007
Rd 1- Jarvis Moss OVER Michael Griffin, Aaron Ross, Paul Posluszny, Jon Beason, Reggie Nelson
Don't forget the BROWNCO experiment. I'll let somone else list the failed FAs and DCs.
SmilinAssasSin27
01-11-2009, 11:06 AM
I think we all know who deserves to be ignored, especially over SmilinAssassin.:salute:
Thanx man.
He's just not gonna take the blinders off. Dude can't handle outside variables that may negatively effect his "arguments".
Firing Shanahan was straight up stupid. But if we can come out with some good FAs by the end of the offseason we'll be ok.
SmilinAssasSin27
01-11-2009, 11:09 AM
You have proven yet again to be a winner.
Check out your poll.
Guess it didn't go the way you wanted it to.
Take your ball and go home.
In his eyes he probably didn't lose, cuz the pro-Bowen vote has yet to hit 50%.
BroncoJoe
01-11-2009, 11:10 AM
The more I think about it, the more I'm leaning toward having an offensive minded HC and him bringing in a great AHC/DC.
BroncoJoe
01-11-2009, 11:11 AM
In his eyes he probably didn't lose, cuz the pro-Bowen vote has yet to hit 50%.
Now it has... :salute: :heh:
SmilinAssasSin27
01-11-2009, 11:12 AM
well played sir. well played! :salute:
If its McDaniels, then firing Shanahan was more about getting rid of a hall of fame offensive coach and not about fixing the Broncos.
As I have said (and got some response about taking the crap elsewhere), those two goals are not mutually exclusive.
It's VERY possible that Bowlen actually told the truth and that he believed that the team needed a 'change'. We will likely never know exactly why he made the decision, and it might be all the more confusing if he goes with another offensive HC, which I think he should.
atwater27
01-11-2009, 11:22 AM
The most important player on our team, Cutler, needs a good solid offensive minded coach to guide him and develop him into the superstar he is capable of becoming.
BroncoJoe
01-11-2009, 11:25 AM
As I have said (and got some response about taking the crap elsewhere), those two goals are not mutually exclusive.
It's VERY possible that Bowlen actually told the truth and that he believed that the team needed a 'change'. We will likely never know exactly why he made the decision, and it might be all the more confusing if he goes with another offensive HC, which I think he should.
I believe what Bowlen said 100%. Just a gut feeling that the organization needed a new direction. It was getting stale, and locked in mediocrity.
Hiring Marvin Lewis didn't give the Bengals a superior D. He didn't have a DC in his back pocket to make it work.
This is apples and oranges. Youre comparing one organization with one of the worst owners in the NFL with one that allegedly has one of the best to work for. This past year Bowlen was voted by NFL coaches as one of the top 3 owners to work for.
Hiring Romeo Crennel didn't give the Browns a good D. He didn't know another good DC either.
Actually, by invoking Crennels name your just drawing attention to the failures of coaches coming from the Belichick tree. How is that an arugment for McDaniels. But aside from that he took over a franchise without a QB and in his second season was given a lifeline when one emerged. This past season the QB situation once again let him down. Plus Joe Thomas' play dropped off. Also, Phil Savage was picking personell.
Hiring Mike Nolan didn't help the Niners get a good D. Once again...
They were alright on D. SF never had a franchise QB emerge. Denver has what looks to be a rare QB talent in Cutler. Again, apples and oranges.
You hire the package. Being an offensive or defensive genius at your last job doesn't mean you can put together the personnel to make it work at your new job, especially since you will most likely not be running the offense or defense yourself.
Yeah, you do hire packages but like I said, the defense is in such a state of disarray that competence needs to come from the top. Additionally, if its true that Spags espouses running more, then he is right. This will help the defense and also help Jay.
All 3 of those guys had world-class defensive credentials, and their defenses have sucked. Their teams have wallowed in leaderless mediocrity or worse.
Again, an apple and an orange arent the same thing because theyre both fruit.
Hiring a guy who loves to pass, and has had ridiculous success passing, and has done it with a HOF QB and a journeyman QB, is not the worst thing in the world when we ALSO have a very good QB and weapons but no running game.
Yeah it is. It shows that Pat is cowtowing to Jay who probably threw a fit about Shanahan being fired (admittedly, thats total speculation by me). They are a dominant running game away from being a great offense. If they ignore the run and become pass happy, our offense will always be suscpetible to DCs like Spags who put the shackles on McDaniels' offense in the SB.
Of course, NE was also 4th in the league in rushing attempts and 6th in yards this year - he doesn't COMPLETELY hate the run...
Thats because he had a novice QB. When he had Brady, he was pass happy and this is how they lost the SB. Their love of the pass allowed NYG to pin their ears back. But when he didnt have a Brady he ran more. Cutler is going into his 3 full year as a starter and is coming off a year where he threw for 4,500 yards. I think you are more likely to see McDaniels from 2007 and not 2008.
The idea of hiring McDaniels isn't the most ludicrous thing in the world, lex. It's just an alternate path. If you want to make sure you have both sides of the ball covered, you can either hire a defensive-minded HC who won't ruin our potentially high-powered offense with his OC choice and who can also pick a DC worth his salt to help us...
Why would you hire a pass happy coach like McDaniels when you have his master in Spags who is available?
Or you hire the offensive-minded HC to help safeguard what you've already built, believing that he has an in with a great defensive mind to fix what Shanahan's offensive mind couldn't - the defense.
Once again, the defense is in such shambles that they really need an architect to rebuild it and the vision needs to come from the top.
Capers invented zone-blitzing. Pretty much literally invented it in the USFL. He and Lebeau worked it out for the Steelers in the early 90s. Lebeau is still using an offshoot of it now.
And it would also require moving to a 3-4 which wouldnt be so bad but why would you do that when someone like Spags is available. And it would also mean a lot of roster turnover. Im not sure how well DJ would do in a 3-4 and we just committed to him contractually.
Why would I think that the guy who can deliver me the defense that the Steelers have used on and off for 15 years to cut up every offense in the NFL is a bad thing?
Because the guy who mastered McDaniels as a tactician is out there.
I don't need McDaniels to have tons of defense on his resume. I need him to be able to deliver it on the field. If he can't, then he's the wrong guy.
See the comment above.
If he can, he could still be the wrong guy, but at least we have a better shot at getting this fixed that we did with Shanahan and his defensive retreads and retards.
Im not holding my breath that McDaniels is as good on offense that Shanahan was. People constantly gush about the Patriots O last year because they scored a lot of points. Throughout the whole season I was waiting for their lack of a running game to bite them in the butt and it finall did. Shanahan saw the value in a runnig game (or at least did in the beginning) and we won SBs because of it. And he did it out of base formations not this rinky dink shotgun stuff. Sorry but offense isnt all about points. Its also about balance, efficeincy and controlling the game. Shanahan understood that. I have yet to see anything indicating that McDaniels does.
I'm still waiting to see it, I guess. Hiring Dom Capers as DC is a great move IMO. In his past two shots, hiring Dom as HC has not been good. Spaognuolo could always turn into Capers as HC...there are no safe bets here.
Why not make Capers the head coach?
I want to see the dice land before I call BS, y'know?
~G
Not me. Like Ive said. When you look at the resumes of the candidates in terms of what theyve put on the field, Spags is superior and that was proven in a big money game called the super bowl. If Bowlen isnt going to hire the most qualified guy (whose scheme is also a 4-3), then whoever he hires has no margin for error. They better have their act together out of the gate. If not, I hope he is so miserable that he wishes he never would have interviewed for the job.
SmilinAssasSin27
01-11-2009, 11:28 AM
Get ready folks, G is about to be ignore as well.
atwater27
01-11-2009, 11:32 AM
Get ready folks, G is about to be ignore as well.
LMAO! will Lex have anyone left to read his stunning insight?
SmilinAssasSin27
01-11-2009, 11:33 AM
LMAO! will Lex have anyone left to read his stunning insight?
let's hope not.
It would be about fixing the Broncos as a team, including the front office
where Shanny the GM failed miseably through the years.
also to choke a 3 game lead with 3 to go has to be looked at as well.
and to get smoked at SD where they looked very unprepared for that game really
Everyone is focused on this "GM" thing as the problem. That if Shanahan wasn't the GM, didn't have total control, things wouldn't be a problem.
Head coaches hire coordinators. Head coaches are responsible for offensive and defensive failures. Head coaches are held responsible for end of season collapses.
I posted elsewhere, and don't remember off the top of my head exactly, but I believe in '02, '03, and '04 we got off to 4-1 or 5-1 starts, and then played .500 ball the rest of the season and either missed, or squeaked into the playoffs.
This year, we become the only team in history to have a three game lead in the division and not make the playoffs.
While he might have been turning the team around, and was just a few players away on defense (and I believe that was the case), the fact is that Shanahan the 'head coach' was not getting solid enough performance for the owner's liking.
Shanahan was the HEAD COACH and as such had the responsibility for both offense and defense. He failed miserably on defense for at least 5 years.
The new HEAD COACH will be fired as well if they fail to manage BOTH sides of the ball competently.
He will also hire a DEFENSIVE COORDINATOR.
Exactly. The HEAD COACH, not the GM, was responsible for these things.
Once again, if the defense wouldnt have been so dreadful, the team would have been in the playoffs. Though, its entertaining to sit here and watch you play contrarian, its undeniable that the single biggest problem with the team was the defense.
It was certainly the biggest single problem, but the offense had its shortcomings as well. Considering the yards they put up, they shouldn't have been middle of the pack in scoring. They shouldn't have been among the league leaders in dropped passes. Take away key Marshall and Royal drops, and Cutler interceptions (not to mention his fumble that Hochuli gave back to him), and the team makes the playoffs.
OK, but what exactly is Pat accomplishing in fixing the defense if he has to make two significant hires before he finds someone that gives the defense vision? Once again, if Bowlen hires McDaniels as the head coach, this move was more about replacing Shanahan and less about fixing the defense.
You don't focus on a 'unit' first, you find someone that can lead the team. Hire and manage coordinators. It would be idiotic for Bowlen to simply focus on 'fixing' the defense.
I dont know...but I do know Im putting you on ignore. Youre just too scattered and flailing.
Pot/Kettle black, often? :confused:
Thats just it. I wouldnt even be asking him this. McDaniels shouldnt even be part of the process. The defense was such a coaching shortcoming this past year that the initial hiring being one to give it vision should be paramount.
That is simply a ridiculous statement. The new head coach shouldn't be part of the process of hiring a DC? You keep going on about this 'vision', which doesn't really even make sense.
Hiring Marvin Lewis didn't give the Bengals a superior D. He didn't have a DC in his back pocket to make it work.
Hiring Romeo Crennel didn't give the Browns a good D. He didn't know another good DC either.
Hiring Mike Nolan didn't help the Niners get a good D. Once again...
You hire the package. Being an offensive or defensive genius at your last job doesn't mean you can put together the personnel to make it work at your new job, especially since you will most likely not be running the offense or defense yourself.
All 3 of those guys had world-class defensive credentials, and their defenses have sucked. Their teams have wallowed in leaderless mediocrity or worse.
Hiring a guy who loves to pass, and has had ridiculous success passing, and has done it with a HOF QB and a journeyman QB, is not the worst thing in the world when we ALSO have a very good QB and weapons but no running game.
Of course, NE was also 4th in the league in rushing attempts and 6th in yards this year - he doesn't COMPLETELY hate the run...
The idea of hiring McDaniels isn't the most ludicrous thing in the world, lex. It's just an alternate path. If you want to make sure you have both sides of the ball covered, you can either hire a defensive-minded HC who won't ruin our potentially high-powered offense with his OC choice and who can also pick a DC worth his salt to help us...
Or you hire the offensive-minded HC to help safeguard what you've already built, believing that he has an in with a great defensive mind to fix what Shanahan's offensive mind couldn't - the defense.
Capers invented zone-blitzing. Pretty much literally invented it in the USFL. He and Lebeau worked it out for the Steelers in the early 90s. Lebeau is still using an offshoot of it now.
Why would I think that the guy who can deliver me the defense that the Steelers have used on and off for 15 years to cut up every offense in the NFL is a bad thing?
I don't need McDaniels to have tons of defense on his resume. I need him to be able to deliver it on the field. If he can't, then he's the wrong guy.
If he can, he could still be the wrong guy, but at least we have a better shot at getting this fixed that we did with Shanahan and his defensive retreads and retards.
I'm still waiting to see it, I guess. Hiring Dom Capers as DC is a great move IMO. In his past two shots, hiring Dom as HC has not been good. Spaognuolo could always turn into Capers as HC...there are no safe bets here.
I want to see the dice land before I call BS, y'know?
~G
Exactly, you hire a head coach to run the whole show, who brings in coordinators to run each unit. You don't go and focus simply on one unit (say defense) and not take a global approach to hiring process.
I believe what Bowlen said 100%. Just a gut feeling that the organization needed a new direction. It was getting stale, and locked in mediocrity.
I know, but as often happened with Shanahan, and now is happening with Bowlen, the first assumption is that he is 'lieing' because what he said doesn't fit with our arm-chair quarterback view of the organization.
SmilinAssasSin27
01-11-2009, 11:49 AM
be careful Tned. You're next on the ignore fairy's list. You make way too much sense and you didn't draw it on the wall of a cave.
Lonestar
01-11-2009, 12:02 PM
I agree.......the broncos are one of the better organizations..................but....if Bowlen and the gang are really THAT good.......why is the franchise in the position they are now......and why did they let it happen???....
Now here they are.....trying to find a better head coach than Shanahan..:confused:......good luck with that....
it is easy to let things slide when your hero is telling you it is one or two players away from the next ring....
mikey was a fine Offensive mind years ago an has made Jay into a potent weapon an little loose cannon but still a kid with alot of potential..
that said I think the straw that broke Pats back was the statement that he was going to keep slowick.. mikey is pretty loyal to his folks but with the exception of mikey and Boob no one believed that Boob was worth a damn..
Our defense was a laughing stock of the league.. maybe doormat would be a better term, his FA pick ups this past year on D were all utter failures for the money expended..
We have been sliding for a decade and subtle slide but declining and once PITT gave everyone a blueprint on beating us in the AFCCG in 2006 it was all over but the shouting.. Pat was also to loyal to his friend.. to a fault IMHO..
underrated29
01-11-2009, 12:04 PM
while i dont like that we got rid of shanny. I do trust they will get good coaches to replace him and his staff.
This whole arguement that shannys replacement is only about replacing him or whatever and not fixing the team is absolutley incredible to me. Not in a good way, either.
So all teams that have offensive minded coaches, cant have a good defense because they are offensive minded. And any team that hires an offensive minded coach isnt trying to make their team better, unless they get a defensive minded coach.
How can anyone say that because a person has a preference for offense or is better at offense that they cannot and will not be compitent on the defensive side. Its lunacy to me.
broncophan
01-11-2009, 12:20 PM
it is easy to let things slide when your hero is telling you it is one or two players away from the next ring....
mikey was a fine Offensive mind years ago an has made Jay into a potent weapon an little loose cannon but still a kid with alot of potential..
that said I think the straw that broke Pats back was the statement that he was going to keep slowick.. mikey is pretty loyal to his folks but with the exception of mikey and Boob no one believed that Boob was worth a damn..
Our defense was a laughing stock of the league.. maybe doormat would be a better term, his FA pick ups this past year on D were all utter failures for the money expended..
We have been sliding for a decade and subtle slide but declining and once PITT gave everyone a blueprint on beating us in the AFCCG in 2006 it was all over but the shouting.. Pat was also to loyal to his friend.. to a fault IMHO..
I understand some of what you are saying.......but we did go to the afc championship game.....what......3 years ago???.......I don't think the "slide" the last few years was really that bad........
yes our defense is horrible.........but we do have a qb.....who is still learning the nfl game.........and God help him/and the team if he has to learn a new offense.....imo.
GO BRONCOS..........
SmilinAssasSin27
01-11-2009, 12:24 PM
I understand some of what you are saying.......but we did go to the afc championship game.....what......3 years ago???.......I don't think the "slide" the last few years was really that bad........
yes our defense is horrible.........but we do have a qb.....who is still learning the nfl game.........and God help him/and the team if he has to learn a new offense.....imo.
GO BRONCOS..........
As realistic as I try to be in my understanding that we can't win it all every year, the last 3 seasons have been completely unacceptable. Nothing on this team in any way resembles the 2005 squad.
Wow, the numbers arent exactly an endorsement of Bowlen. Certainly not what it would have probably been a couple of months ago. I cant wait to see what it will be when he botches this, which it appears will happen.
BroncoJoe
01-11-2009, 12:39 PM
Wow, the numbers arent exactly an endorsement of Bowlen. Certainly not what it would have probably been a couple of months ago. I cant wait to see what it will be when he botches this, which it appears will happen.
Seriously, I'm just trying to figure out why you're a Broncos fan. We have one of the best owners in the business who you bash. We had a HOF coach who you bashed. You NEVER have anything positive to say about the organization or team for that matter.
:confused:
Lonestar
01-11-2009, 12:41 PM
let me add that if it was not for mikeys enormous ego of being all knowing and having to be totally in charge then I think he would still be here at least as HC and having total control on O..
his failing was realizing he sucked in defensive prowess considering he could beat any D.. I do not understand his inability to either design a Scheme on D by reverse engineering it..
face it folks his O playbook was pretty much cast in stone.. Did he really think buy putting up 45+ points a game he could just outscore everyone all the way to the Superbowl ring?
Had mikey allowed Pat to bring in a bona fide GM for personnel and a qualified DC to manage the other side of the LOS. I think that we could have been almost unstoppable..
But IMHO he could not let go of the power of being totally in control..... Afraid of the Davis syndrome having an owner that meddled with the team..
EGO IMO lead to his downfall..
Foochacho
01-11-2009, 12:49 PM
Simple solution-give the job to Romo he will teach our guys to be the dirtiest in the league. Our D will be vicious. At practice I hear he is going to bring in homeless people and let the players practice breaking fingers on them. The other teams will always lose the game by the fourth quarter, because by that time no one on the roster will still be able to play.
There is no way this could fail.
Simple solution-give the job to Romo he will teach our guys to be the dirtiest in the league. Our D will be vicious. At practice I hear he is going to bring in homeless people and let the players practice breaking fingers on them. The other teams will always lose the game by the fourth quarter, because by that time no one on the roster will still be able to play.
There is no way this could fail.
Thats too funny. Maybe he could put together "a plan" to pitch to Pat where he has Shannon Sharpe teaching the offensive players to talk players out of their game.
G_Money
01-11-2009, 02:05 PM
stuff that lex said.
Lex...you know I don't mind talking to you about this stuff, but you also know you're a hard man to have a conversation with once you get the bit in your teeth.
I threw out a bunch of good-to-great DCs and mentioned that they failed both as head coaches and in bringing defense to their new teams. Apparently that's apples to oranges because Bowlen's a great owner.
Only you're also calling him a miserable owner for potentially not hiring a DC as HC, even though many, MANY DCs cannot run a competent defense as HCs.
Spagnuolo did beat McDaniels in one game, by a small margin. However, Spagnuolo will not be running our defense. If he's the best, then by definition we will not HAVE the best running our D if we hire him. We will only have whatever coordinator he picks, and that coordinator will almost certainly not be as good as Spagnuolo himself is, since he's one of the very best in the league.
Since neither McDaniels nor Spagnuolo will actually be the head coordinator of either the offense or the defense, I can't figure out why you think it's utterly crucial that Spagnuolo be hired as head coach.
If it was a choice between getting the 4-3 Spagnulo defense or the 3-4 Capers defense, I can see it. And in some ways, the choice is between the 3-4 and the 4-3 - but it'll be the McDermott 4-3 or somebody else's 4-3, not Spagnuolo's 4-3. The Capers 3-4 that we would get would actually BE the Capers 3-4.
You're arguing against an offense that will not be run by the guy you're lambasting and for a defense that will not be run by the guy you're championing.
And ridiculing those who disagree with your two disingenous arguments.
I love Spagnuolo too, but why go that route?
What is the package of coordinators you hope to see Spagnuolo bring, that makes him a better package deal than McDaniels?
Neither has prior HC experience.
Both have been great coordinators.
You say Spagnuolo believes more in the run, but we really don't know that, nor do we know that he would bring in an OC who would run more than McDaniels. McDaniels ran more than 2/3 of the league last year when he was passing up a storm, and then was a top-5 rushing team this year when his QB was kneecapped and only a quirk of the system kept his team from the playoffs where no one wanted to play them again.
There's no evidence to say that McDaniels wants to be the Eagles and give up running. There's only a few hints as to what Spagnuolo would want to do with a running game, and even fewer to say that he could do them with our motley collection of RBs and a potential shift away from the ZBS, while there is evidence that McDaniels is flexible in his approach based on the players he has.
I guess I just don't see the evidence you see. All the fruit I see lines up fine in several directions, while you're sorting fruit into apples and oranges and then green apples and red apples and then bruised red apples and non-bruised red apples when we haven't collected more than a couple of pieces of fruit yet.
I'm waiting for more fruit, lex, that's all. The orchards where we are looking are all stocked full of a bounty of fruit, all of which looks good to eat. There are pears and apples and oranges, and I'm not gonna burn down the orange groves and curse the day they were planted because I like apples better.
We might pick all the wrong, rotten fruit from whatever grove we name as ours, but that hasn't happened yet, and I'm not gonna stress about it til we do. :salute:
Don't wear yourself out early, man - it's a long offseason and we've got lots of talking yet to do.
~G
Lex...you know I don't mind talking to you about this stuff, but you also know you're a hard man to have a conversation with once you get the bit in your teeth.
I threw out a bunch of good-to-great DCs and mentioned that they failed both as head coaches and in bringing defense to their new teams. Apparently that's apples to oranges because Bowlen's a great owner.
Only you're also calling him a miserable owner for potentially not hiring a DC as HC, even though many, MANY DCs cannot run a competent defense as HCs.
Spagnuolo did beat McDaniels in one game, by a small margin. However, Spagnuolo will not be running our defense. If he's the best, then by definition we will not HAVE the best running our D if we hire him. We will only have whatever coordinator he picks, and that coordinator will almost certainly not be as good as Spagnuolo himself is, since he's one of the very best in the league.
Since neither McDaniels nor Spagnuolo will actually be the head coordinator of either the offense or the defense, I can't figure out why you think it's utterly crucial that Spagnuolo be hired as head coach.
If it was a choice between getting the 4-3 Spagnulo defense or the 3-4 Capers defense, I can see it. And in some ways, the choice is between the 3-4 and the 4-3 - but it'll be the McDermott 4-3 or somebody else's 4-3, not Spagnuolo's 4-3. The Capers 3-4 that we would get would actually BE the Capers 3-4.
You're arguing against an offense that will not be run by the guy you're lambasting and for a defense that will not be run by the guy you're championing.
And ridiculing those who disagree with your two disingenous arguments.
I love Spagnuolo too, but why go that route?
What is the package of coordinators you hope to see Spagnuolo bring, that makes him a better package deal than McDaniels?
Neither has prior HC experience.
Both have been great coordinators.
You say Spagnuolo believes more in the run, but we really don't know that, nor do we know that he would bring in an OC who would run more than McDaniels. McDaniels ran more than 2/3 of the league last year when he was passing up a storm, and then was a top-5 rushing team this year when his QB was kneecapped and only a quirk of the system kept his team from the playoffs where no one wanted to play them again.
There's no evidence to say that McDaniels wants to be the Eagles and give up running. There's only a few hints as to what Spagnuolo would want to do with a running game, and even fewer to say that he could do them with our motley collection of RBs and a potential shift away from the ZBS, while there is evidence that McDaniels is flexible in his approach based on the players he has.
I guess I just don't see the evidence you see. All the fruit I see lines up fine in several directions, while you're sorting fruit into apples and oranges and then green apples and red apples and then bruised red apples and non-bruised red apples when we haven't collected more than a couple of pieces of fruit yet.
I'm waiting for more fruit, lex, that's all. The orchards where we are looking are all stocked full of a bounty of fruit, all of which looks good to eat. There are pears and apples and oranges, and I'm not gonna burn down the orange groves and curse the day they were planted because I like apples better.
We might pick all the wrong, rotten fruit from whatever grove we name as ours, but that hasn't happened yet, and I'm not gonna stress about it til we do. :salute:
Don't wear yourself out early, man - it's a long offseason and we've got lots of talking yet to do.
~G
I dont agree with that at all. The offense in Denver has been strongly linked to Shanahan. It was his vision. And in New England, you know that Belichick factors prominantly in the direction of the defense. Belichick is the architect of that defense. He has others calling plays but its collaborated on leading up to and even during the game.
G_Money
01-11-2009, 02:16 PM
But our offense hit the skids when Heimerdinger took over. Our offense became pass-happy with Bates.
The hallmarks of the previous incarnation of The Shanahan Offense are now echoed in Houston.
So yes, it's Shanahan's Offense, but the guy putting wrinkles in it isn't Shanahan. Spagnuolo knows what kind of D he wants to run. He'll hire a guy he thinks can run it. He'll have input on how it's run - but he won't be running it. It won't be purely his creation any more.
So the guy he gets to run the D will have more say in it than you think. IMO anyway.
~G
Foochacho
01-11-2009, 02:24 PM
Lex, You seem to wanna hire a big defensive name for HC but your wishlist draft/signings is mainly offensive. If you are so big on a good D coach wouldn't you want to give him some talent to work with?
G_Money
01-11-2009, 02:25 PM
I don't think he's updated his draft list, Foo.
That was when Slowik was here. No sense wasting draftpicks on a D destined to be bottom of the league again...
~G
But our offense hit the skids when Heimerdinger took over. Our offense became pass-happy with Bates.
The hallmarks of the previous incarnation of The Shanahan Offense are now echoed in Houston.
So yes, it's Shanahan's Offense, but the guy putting wrinkles in it isn't Shanahan. Spagnuolo knows what kind of D he wants to run. He'll hire a guy he thinks can run it. He'll have input on how it's run - but he won't be running it. It won't be purely his creation any more.
So the guy he gets to run the D will have more say in it than you think. IMO anyway.
~G
Like I said, he'll put the structure to it..build the foundation. In the beginning, its reasonable to think that he will put a lot of time into that part of it and then when things are going ok, he will spend less time with it and leave it more to the dc. But either way, I think he would pick someone who thinks like him.
Lex, You seem to wanna hire a big defensive name for HC but your wishlist draft/signings is mainly offensive. If you are so big on a good D coach wouldn't you want to give him some talent to work with?
Id look to sign a couple of FAs. And we already have a couple of high draft picks who havent yet realized their potential. If youve read any quotes from the Giants Dlinemen, youd know they swear by the guy. I want to see if Spags (or some coaching) can save them from going to waste. In that regard, I also view Spags as a way of preventing Bowlen from wasting more money. If we were to draft defense in Rd 1, I think it should be a front 7 player like Gerald McCoy or Everette Brown. But I also see a commitment to running and a dominant running game as helping the offense AND the defense.
Foochacho
01-11-2009, 03:00 PM
I would love a first or second round rb. But I don't want to spend money on a safety in FA when we could get one in the draft. If we spend any money on FA I want a proven DL/DE.
I see what you are saying about seeing if spags can bring out our dlines potential but I don't want to wait any longer for a good line. I am sick of no pass rush and getting ran all over. If spags becomes HC he won't be able to spend all his time on developing the line. He will have a whole team to look over and implement his system. I am not sure who spags will bring in with him as a DC and position coaches. Until we know more I am not quite sold on spags being the answer. But I do love the potential of having a giants type of Dline. We won't know more about what spags plans to do for our team until after the giants lose and he can focus on a plan. If he can come up with a good crew I would love to see him come in.
I was happy we got rid of Shanny he has become stubborn in his ways and if he was going to keep slowick then we would only be regressing. We would have another year of horrid D and we might lose some of our good FA's because they are sick of losing when the offense scores over 30 pooints.
Shanny was sinking and we need a new ship. Now if McDaniels is like shanny I don't see it as replacing shanny with a lesser version of himself. McDaniels would be ready to make a big splash and he knows that we need a D badly. He is wanting to get a great DC in here to fix it for us. I think we will see an improvement in offense and defense with McDaniels. The patriots know how to score in the redzone they constantly have 40+ point games with Brady or Cassell.
I think with Spags we could be looking at a whole new club in a few years it will be a good club but it will hardly reflect bronco football. With McDaniels our club will essentially be the same as it has been with an improving defense. Mcdaniels will cost more bringing in him and capers but it will probally get results sooner than Spags would. I don't know about you but I want results now. McDaniels can keep developing the offense while capers builds us a defense.
I would love a first or second round rb. But I don't want to spend money on a safety in FA when we could get one in the draft. If we spend any money on FA I want a proven DL/DE.
Thats a good thought. Drafting Dlinemen is the most risky.
I see what you are saying about seeing if spags can bring out our dlines potential but I don't want to wait any longer for a good line. I am sick of no pass rush and getting ran all over. If spags becomes HC he won't be able to spend all his time on developing the line. He will have a whole team to look over and implement his system. I am not sure who spags will bring in with him as a DC and position coaches. Until we know more I am not quite sold on spags being the answer. But I do love the potential of having a giants type of Dline. We won't know more about what spags plans to do for our team until after the giants lose and he can focus on a plan. If he can come up with a good crew I would love to see him come in.
I dont disagree but there are fewer top drawer DLinemen in FA than there are other positions. Plus, drafting a young guy is a risky proposition in that they often dont pan out AND you dont know this until 2 or 3 years. Thats why Im hoping Spags can make Moss, Crowder, Doom, Thomas, and Robertson more than furniture which is what Slowik did.
I was happy we got rid of Shanny he has become stubborn in his ways and if he was going to keep slowick then we would only be regressing. We would have another year of horrid D and we might lose some of our good FA's because they are sick of losing when the offense scores over 30 pooints.
I wasnt happy at all with his proclamation that Slowik would be back. To me, that was a clear sign that he had gone too far with his power. But at the same time, Bowlen let this go on for a long time and if youre going to make the bold move, you better then do the right thing.
Shanny was sinking and we need a new ship. Now if McDaniels is like shanny I don't see it as replacing shanny with a lesser version of himself. McDaniels would be ready to make a big splash and he knows that we need a D badly. He is wanting to get a great DC in here to fix it for us. I think we will see an improvement in offense and defense with McDaniels. The patriots know how to score in the redzone they constantly have 40+ point games with Brady or Cassell.
It depends on what you mean from improvement. Yeah, we may score more points but with McDaniel I get the feeling that more points is going to come at the expense of the running game, which you need to balance out the offense when playing elite teams. I feel also that McDaniels is cowtowing to Cutler.
I think with Spags we could be looking at a whole new club in a few years it will be a good club but it will hardly reflect bronco football. With McDaniels our club will essentially be the same as it has been with an improving defense. Mcdaniels will cost more bringing in him and capers but it will probally get results sooner than Spags would. I don't know about you but I want results now. McDaniels can keep developing the offense while capers builds us a defense.
I disagree, especially if Spags & Co were to start getting more production out of the Dline. FWIW, the year before Spags arrived the Giants were ranked in the mid 20s in defense and in his first year they were top 10. Theyre top 10 again this year even after losing Strahan and Umenyoura. Switching to the 3-4 would cause more roster turnover and Im not convinced DJ would do well in a 3-4 since he has struggled at every other position besides WLB. I also doubt Spags would really want to change the ZBS that much but he's right to want to commit more to the run. If anyone were to insist on getting rid of the ZBS, I can see that being a deal breaker because we have personnel specific for that. But since its been proven to be effective, I question whether someone would want to do away with is.
Foochacho
01-11-2009, 03:30 PM
That is my problem with spags right now. We don't know his plan. What will he do with our offense? I love a pass happy offense with a balanced running game. We have a gunslinger and should use him. I doubt McDaniels will abandon the run or the ZBS. I bet he will keep our O how it is. If we get a good RB our redzone problems are gone. The Patriots have had no problems in the redzone, and that is were our offense hurts the most.
Spags may want to rebuild our Oline and get rid of zoneblocking with some bigger linemen. I would love a great defense but I don't want to change the team too much. If I wanted a defense first type team I would of been a bears fan. I hate watching the bears and love the broncos because of that high powered offense.
That is my problem with spags right now. We don't know his plan. What will he do with our offense? I love a pass happy offense with a balanced running game. We have a gunslinger and should use him. I doubt McDaniels will abandon the run or the ZBS. I bet he will keep our O how it is. If we get a good RB our redzone problems are gone. The Patriots have had no problems in the redzone, and that is were our offense hurts the most.
Spags may want to rebuild our Oline and get rid of zoneblocking with some bigger linemen. I would love a great defense but I don't want to change the team too much. If I wanted a defense first type team I would of been a bears fan. I hate watching the bears and love the broncos because of that high powered offense.
I dont think we will be a 13-10 team. Again, we are a dominant running game away from being a great offense and we dont need McDaniels to deliver us there. In fact, his tendency to be pass happy gets in the way. What I would anticipate a dominant running game doing is moving the play distribution to closer to 50/50 but to raise the yards per pass attempt. We should value the yards per attempt more than attempts.
Foochacho
01-11-2009, 03:47 PM
Cutler isn't quite there yet he constantly overthrows receivers. The Pats have had success with short passing and our recievers wokr good with it. Brandon is great with YAC and we know hillis can pound a few out after a catch. Eddie can be dangerous with a little space and is always a deep threat.
McDaniels can fine tune the offense while letting someone else worry about our D. giving him an easy job letting him focus on the big picture. Spags will have to do the opposite he needs to focus on D which needs alot of work. He may lose sight of the big picture because he is too busy being more of a DC than a head coach. That is why I think we will see results sooner with McDaniels it may take a while for Spags to get total control on focus on the team.
We probally won't hire any of them though this organization seems to like to lead you one way and then go the other.
Cugel
01-11-2009, 04:17 PM
But our offense hit the skids when Heimerdinger took over. Our offense became pass-happy with Bates.
The hallmarks of the previous incarnation of The Shanahan Offense are now echoed in Houston.
So yes, it's Shanahan's Offense, but the guy putting wrinkles in it isn't Shanahan. Spagnuolo knows what kind of D he wants to run. He'll hire a guy he thinks can run it. He'll have input on how it's run - but he won't be running it. It won't be purely his creation any more.
So the guy he gets to run the D will have more say in it than you think. IMO anyway.
The offense became "pass-happy" when they lost 7 RBs and had to rely totally on Cutler and Brandon Marshall!
In reality, Bowlen is making it a condition of whomever he hires that they keep the Broncos offense intact. That probably means keeping Bates to begin with, possibly with keeping Dennison, although Spagnolo has reportedly wanted to bring in another Giants offensive coach and would presumably be permitted to do so. I think Bowlen might want him to keep the QB coach and Rick Tuten, the Strength and Conditioning coach as a bare minimum.
That might in fact be a road-block to hiring Spagnolo. Bowlen might feel more comfortable with McDaniels if he were happier with keeping some of the offensive coaches and adapting to the current Broncos system.
I'm not insisting this is true of course, it might be that Bowlen will let McDaniels or whoever change whatever he wanted on the grounds that the new coach has to have room to succeed or fail on his own.
But, a true marriage of the minds might well mean the coach comes in and keeps things pretty much as they are on offense.
Another factor might be that Bowlen would be more comfortable allowing McDaniels than Spagnolo tinker with the offense.
But one thing is virtually certain. The ZBS will be the blocking system next season. There's enough problem getting new players to strengthen the defense without having to totally overhaul the offense at the same time.
The team has invested heavily in offensive linemen who run the ZBS and do it effectively. Few of them could transfer to a more traditional straight ahead blocking system. It just wouldn't work without acquiring at least 3 or 4 new OL.
Changing over to a 3-4 defense would similarly require a big personnel shift, but that doesn't matter since the defense needs a BIG infusion of talent anyway. A newly installed 3-4 could hardly be much worse than last year's defense.
However, they'd need at least 2 NTs, and 2 or 3 LBs who could play in the 3-4 and rush the passer, as well as 2 DEs who can play in the 3-4.
If Jarvis Moss and Tim Crowder weren't already busts it would be a total waste to shift over to a 3-4 since neither could play DE in a 3-4 and the Broncos just spent a 1st, and 2 3rd round picks on them. But, since they will both be cut or traded before next season, it doesn't matter.
The Broncos will need two new DEs anyway, but neither Marcus Thomas, nor certainly DeWayne Roberston can play in a 3-4. Thomas is nothing special and Robertson's knees can barely stand up in a 4-3. He left the Jets to escape the 3-4. He might be cut or traded though, in which case that wouldn't matter.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Release Candidate 2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.