PDA

View Full Version : McDaniels' objectivity welcomed



Denver Native (Carol)
03-10-2009, 03:22 PM
http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_11874404

The way Shannon Sharpe sees it, the Broncos are going to trade Jay Cutler.

Now for the fine print on the deal: By the time it happens, he won't be Jay Cutler anymore.

"I can't recall a young quarterback with that kind of talent getting traded away," Sharpe said. "They tried to move John (Elway), but he wasn't in the prime of his career. They traded Joe Montana, but he was in year 15. They traded Johnny Unitas, but he was in year 15 or year 17 or whatever. So that's different."

Trade Cutler? Please. The only reason it was discussed was because Josh McDaniels had a chance to acquire Matt Cassel. Trouble is, Cutler has gotten so bent out of shape over it that he hasn't finished the sentence in his own mind. What Cutler needs to do is realize his name was being kicked around because McDaniels had a chance to acquire Cassel and a couple of high draft picks to launch a rebuilding of the defense.

Once Cutler gets past the hurt, he'll realize the proposed deal made sense. Because no quarterback, not Peyton Manning or Tom Brady or anyone else, could have been successful with the Broncos' defenses of 2007 and '08.

And maybe, just maybe, Cutler will admit to himself that McDaniels gets it. Say what you will about the botched trade talks, but the Kid Coach has a very clear view of the forest. Unlike the previous regime, he isn't paying lip service to the defense. Instead, he's going to great lengths to fix it.

If you're a Broncos fan, you should be happy McDaniels is calling the shots. He doesn't just bring new energy, which the franchise badly needed. He brings an objective viewpoint that had gotten lost in recent years.

Mike Shanahan had ties, financial and emotional, to his defensive players. His thinking was that, given the offense's potential for greatness, he could get by with a shaky defense. McDaniels? He came in with a chain saw and asked questions later. He didn't adopt Shanahan's signature move and fire the defensive coordinator. He fired the players because, as anyone in this town who doesn't watch HGTV on Sunday afternoons in autumn can attest, they weren't very good.

Now comes the tricky part. McDaniels has signed a handful of replacement parts who, for the short term, could return the defense to respectability. But the players who'll take the defense to the next level for the long run aren't yet here. They have to be drafted and developed.

Draft day. That's when McDaniels will succeed or fail, boom or bust. As Shanahan proved, there often isn't much in between.

claymore
03-10-2009, 03:32 PM
Josh has only screwed us up thus far, hopefully he rights the ship and is successful.

Thnikkaman
03-10-2009, 03:34 PM
This article wasn't very well written. It left me confused.

fcspikeit
03-10-2009, 03:35 PM
http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_11874404

The way Shannon Sharpe sees it, the Broncos are going to trade Jay Cutler.

Now for the fine print on the deal: By the time it happens, he won't be Jay Cutler anymore.

"I can't recall a young quarterback with that kind of talent getting traded away," Sharpe said. "They tried to move John (Elway), but he wasn't in the prime of his career. They traded Joe Montana, but he was in year 15. They traded Johnny Unitas, but he was in year 15 or year 17 or whatever. So that's different."

Trade Cutler? Please. The only reason it was discussed was because Josh McDaniels had a chance to acquire Matt Cassel. Trouble is, Cutler has gotten so bent out of shape over it that he hasn't finished the sentence in his own mind. What Cutler needs to do is realize his name was being kicked around because McDaniels had a chance to acquire Cassel and a couple of high draft picks to launch a rebuilding of the defense.

Once Cutler gets past the hurt, he'll realize the proposed deal made sense. Because no quarterback, not Peyton Manning or Tom Brady or anyone else, could have been successful with the Broncos' defenses of 2007 and '08.

And maybe, just maybe, Cutler will admit to himself that McDaniels gets it. Say what you will about the botched trade talks, but the Kid Coach has a very clear view of the forest. Unlike the previous regime, he isn't paying lip service to the defense. Instead, he's going to great lengths to fix it.

If you're a Broncos fan, you should be happy McDaniels is calling the shots. He doesn't just bring new energy, which the franchise badly needed. He brings an objective viewpoint that had gotten lost in recent years.

Mike Shanahan had ties, financial and emotional, to his defensive players. His thinking was that, given the offense's potential for greatness, he could get by with a shaky defense. McDaniels? He came in with a chain saw and asked questions later. He didn't adopt Shanahan's signature move and fire the defensive coordinator. He fired the players because, as anyone in this town who doesn't watch HGTV on Sunday afternoons in autumn can attest, they weren't very good.

Now comes the tricky part. McDaniels has signed a handful of replacement parts who, for the short term, could return the defense to respectability. But the players who'll take the defense to the next level for the long run aren't yet here. They have to be drafted and developed.

Draft day. That's when McDaniels will succeed or fail, boom or bust. As Shanahan proved, there often isn't much in between.


Nice to see someone gets it.. :salute:

Lonestar
03-10-2009, 03:36 PM
I'm surprised to few on here get it.. so I'll repeat it..

"What Cutler needs to do is realize his name was being kicked around because McDaniels had a chance to acquire Cassel and a couple of high draft picks to launch a rebuilding of the defense."

Good article..

claymore
03-10-2009, 03:43 PM
I'm surprised to few on here get it.. so I'll repeat it..

"What Cutler needs to do is realize his name was being kicked around because McDaniels had a chance to acquire Cassel and a couple of high draft picks to launch a rebuilding of the defense."

Good article..

Oh we get it, and we still think it was a boneheaded move. Trade Champ, Marshall etc...... But Cassell is a one hit wonder in a system that had a very good Oline, good RB's, good Defense, good WR's etc.....

And At most we would have gotten like a 3rd cause we would have given NE our first or Tampa's first.

NameUsedBefore
03-10-2009, 03:46 PM
Lonnie Paxton.

Requiem / The Dagda
03-10-2009, 03:47 PM
I don't see how Coach McDaniels has done anything wrong since he's been here. I'm honestly not surprised by Cutler's immaturity over this whole situation, as he has demonstrated this ever since he has been with the Broncos. If teams called the Broncos because they had interest in Jay Cutler, it is McDaniels and Xanders job to listen to the inquiries. There is nothing wrong with that. Quite honestly, if the Broncos could have gotten several high draft choices and Matt Cassel in return for Cutler -- I'd of been pretty stoked.

When you're in McDaniels' position, you have the right and should listen to such offers. I guess the "communication" issue here is the only concern I'd have, but I'm not going to be too worried about it. I'm a firm believer that no player is above the team and that there aren't any players here in Denver that "can't" be traded. I'm not that attached to Cutler. There are a lot of positives about the guy and there are a lot of negatives about him as well.

I look at what McDaniels and Cassel were able to accomplish in New England last year -- and when you factor that in with the addition of a first-round selection; as well as other possible picks, it is an extremely interesting. The pick compensation seems to be ambiguous; but it would have helped out Denver extraordinarily.

Either way, I'm fine with where we are at. I just think it is hilarious to see people indicting McDaniels (and Xanders) for essentially doing their jobs. So you like Cutler? Fine. A lot of us do. I do. Doesn't mean what McDaniels did or how he feels in regards to him is wrong.

At this point in time, pending how things go -- I hope some sort of deal can be made out. Whether it's a Cutler extension or a Cutler trade. I don't want to see him leave in free agency several years down the road and essentially get nothing out of him. That'd be the worst thing imaginable, IMHO. Then again, I'm just a greedy pick whore.

Requiem / The Dagda
03-10-2009, 03:51 PM
Oh we get it, and we still think it was a boneheaded move. Trade Champ, Marshall etc...... But Cassell is a one hit wonder in a system that had a very good Oline, good RB's, good Defense, good WR's etc.....

And At most we would have gotten like a 3rd cause we would have given NE our first or Tampa's first.

Cassel would be coming to a team that has good wide receivers and a good offensive line. I would not call New England's running backs good, but they worked well within McDaniels' offensive system. Yep, they have a good defense -- but that has nothing to do in regards to the offense. Don't use that as a crutch in your argument; which is relatively poor to begin with.

And no, Denver would have gotten at least a first-rounder in return for Cutler. From what I've gathered; Denver would have received two picks from Tampa Bay (first and a third) and had to have given up Cutler to Tampa Bay, and New England would have gotten our second rounder. In return, we get Cassel and those picks.

That'd leave us with Cassel, a quarterback who did well under McDaniels immediately, two first rounders and two third rounders to address our defensive needs -- or overall team needs. I'd assume Denver would have been interested in trading those picks and accumulating more as well.

When you look at that deal; which seems to be the realistic possibility out of the scenario -- I don't see how Denver loses. Not in the least.

NameUsedBefore
03-10-2009, 03:53 PM
Cassell was playing on a team one year removed from a near perfect season.

I don't think Denver wins many games without Cutler last year.

Lonestar
03-10-2009, 03:53 PM
Oh we get it, and we still think it was a boneheaded move. Trade Champ, Marshall etc...... But Cassell is a one hit wonder in a system that had a very good Oline, good RB's, good Defense, good WR's etc.....

And At most we would have gotten like a 3rd cause we would have given NE our first or Tampa's first.

Last thing I saw was DET #1 and DET #20, Cassell who already knows the system.. he would still have a good OLINE, WR and now a few decent to good RB's and defense as a work in progress..

Verses a reluctant QB to change his going deep mentality, good OLINE, WR and now a few decent to good RB's and defense as a work in progress..
and last but not least #1 #20 and our #12..

Wow I know how I would have voted on this trade.. and frankly I can't believe you would have not thought it great also.. But what do I know..

claymore
03-10-2009, 03:56 PM
Cassel would be coming to a team that has good wide receivers and a good offensive line. I would not call New England's running backs good, but they worked well within McDaniels' offensive system. Yep, they have a good defense -- but that has nothing to do in regards to the offense. Don't use that as a crutch in your argument; which is relatively poor to begin with.

And no, Denver would have gotten at least a first-rounder in return for Cutler. From what I've gathered; Denver would have received two picks from Tampa Bay (first and a third) and had to have given up Cutler to Tampa Bay, and New England would have gotten our second rounder. In return, we get Cassel and those picks.

That'd leave us with Cassel, a quarterback who did well under McDaniels immediately, two first rounders and two third rounders to address our defensive needs -- or overall team needs. I'd assume Denver would have been interested in trading those picks and accumulating more as well.

When you look at that deal; which seems to be the realistic possibility out of the scenario -- I don't see how Denver loses. Not in the least.

Cutler made our line look allot better than it was.

Denver would have got a 1st and a 3rd at most for Cutler, then had to give one of those 1st to NE. Which would have left us with our original 1st at best and Tampa's 3rd.

I dont think an additional third for the swap is worth it. I wouldnt have made that move for Tom Brady let alone Matt Cassel.

If Matt Cassel can get the system and do ok, Cutler should be able to florish.

If not, fire McDaniels and Bring in someone else.

Requiem / The Dagda
03-10-2009, 03:57 PM
Yeah, JR. I feel you. I had heard that #1 and #20 rumor as well, but I think that's very hard to believe. That is a lot of value. If that was the case, I'd of gladly cleaned out Jay's locker myself and walked him to the airport. I'd of even taken the verbal abuse and childish attitude he'd likely give me throughout the process. We'd of had to have given up our #48 (second) to New England in that regard if they were a three-way partner in the deal -- but yes.

The possibility of Denver having the #1, #12 and #20 picks in the draft in order to help this team, along with a quarterback who had success right away under McDaniels would have been something to get real excited over; regardless of how much you like Jay.

Requiem / The Dagda
03-10-2009, 04:00 PM
Cutler made our line look allot better than it was.

This is a statement you can never quantify, and I'm willing to bet you won't even put forth the initiative to do so. Like I said, just another crutch. Denver's offensive line was fabulous in pass blocking last year.


Denver would have got a 1st and a 3rd at most for Cutler, then had to give one of those 1st to NE. Which would have left us with our original 1st at best and Tampa's 3rd.

Okay, but that wasn't the deal. Denver wouldn't be giving up Cutler and one of those firsts to New England. Kansas City got him for a second. Once again, your argument is bunk.

Cutler and #48 would have been shipped out. New England gets the #48, Tampa Bay gets Cutler, Denver gets Cassel along with Tampa's first and third rounder picks. That would have been the deal. Not what you're suggesting. False reality.

claymore
03-10-2009, 04:04 PM
Last thing I saw was DET #1 and DET #20, Cassell who already knows the system.. he would still have a good OLINE, WR and now a few decent to good RB's and defense as a work in progress..

Verses a reluctant QB to change his going deep mentality, good OLINE, WR and now a few decent to good RB's and defense as a work in progress..
and last but not least #1 #20 and our #12..

Wow I know how I would have voted on this trade.. and frankly I can't believe you would have not thought it great also.. But what do I know..

Ive never heard of Detroit in the talks. And you keep forgetting NE wanted a #1 from us. so 2 # 1's in that scenario.

But I still wouldnt have made the move. I would rather have Cutler than the salray cap hit the #1 overall will have, and the uncertainty of first round picks scare me.

Requiem / The Dagda
03-10-2009, 04:07 PM
New England never wanted a number one from Denver. Why would anyone believe that? They traded him to Kansas City for a second rounder. To say that they wanted Denver's #12 is ludicrous. Stop lying.

claymore
03-10-2009, 04:09 PM
[QUOTE]This is a statement you can never quantify, and I'm willing to bet you won't even put forth the initiative to do so. Like I said, just another crutch. Denver's offensive line was fabulous in pass blocking last year.Every game I rewatch on DVR Cutler moves around the pocket like no one ive ever seen. He avoided so many sacks with his awareness etc... Our O line did OK and Clady is sollid, But it wasnt as good as we all think it was.


Okay, but that wasn't the deal. Denver wouldn't be giving up Cutler and one of those firsts to New England. Kansas City got him for a second. Once again, your argument is bunk.
All I can go by is what it was rumored. You cant quantify the fact we could have got him for the 48th pick.


Cutler and #48 would have been shipped out. New England gets the #48, Tampa Bay gets Cutler, Denver gets Cassel along with Tampa's first and third rounder picks. That would have been the deal. Not what you're suggesting. False reality.
False reality is you making up trades that werent rumored.

claymore
03-10-2009, 04:10 PM
New England never wanted a number one from Denver. Why would anyone believe that? They traded him to Kansas City for a second rounder. To say that they wanted Denver's #12 is ludicrous. Stop lying.

Because the #12 pick is a great pick for a playoff caliber team. You can get the best player at one position.

Lonestar
03-10-2009, 04:12 PM
Ive never heard of Detroit in the talks. And you keep forgetting NE wanted a #1 from us. so 2 # 1's in that scenario.

But I still wouldnt have made the move. I would rather have Cutler than the salray cap hit the #1 overall will have, and the uncertainty of first round picks scare me.


It was widely reported a few days back.. It was DET's deal and frankly they would have done something for NE not us.. I could care less..

that was the deal they DET wanted.. As far as a #1 yep that is scary but I'd rather have the option.. than not.. possibly been able to trade it off for more picks also..unlikely but possible.. if not pick of the litter.. and then again #12 and 20.. almost as good as the Herschel Walker trade IMHO..

They get a "pro Bowl" QB we get a passel of picks and Cassell.. NE gets cap space and whatever DET was giving them..

Sweet deal for us IMHO..

tomjonesrocks
03-10-2009, 04:13 PM
I don't know how the author surmises what McDaniels has done in free agency could return the defense to respectability in the short term. There's no studs or likely even top 20 players at their respective positions that were acquired. Role players at best and outright scrubs at worst. Only Dawkins has ever played at a high level.

The defensive roster is still one of the worst in the league. Our only hope is that Nolan's scheme is better the way I see it.

Requiem / The Dagda
03-10-2009, 04:14 PM
Claymore, it honestly isn't worth my time arguing with someone who has no idea what they're talking about. You're saying I'm making up trades? Why on earth would Denver have to give up Cutler (Pro-Bowler) and #12 for Cassel a first and a third when Kansas City got Cassel for a second rounder? I am right in my diagnosis of what the trade would have been. I'm sorry you can't handle that; and for the record your ability to rewind a DVR and that you actually have that capability doesn't quantify what you're saying either. It is really a copout. Carry on though, I won't be participating.

Lonestar
03-10-2009, 04:20 PM
I don't know how the author surmises what McDaniels has done in free agency could return the defense to respectability in the short term. There's no studs or likely even top 20 players at their respective positions that were acquired. Role players at best and outright scrubs at worst. Only Dawkins has ever played at a high level.

The defensive roster is still one of the worst in the league. Our only hope is that Nolan's scheme is better the way I see it.

I suspect that they are thinking we will still get a player or three in the upcoming cuts jun 1 and through training camp as well as the draft..

Not counting that Nolan is a bona fide DC with scheme that works..and even better yet has hired REAL position coaches..

Unlike the abortion conglomeration we had going the past two years..


Had mikey allowed Bates to do his job who knows what might have happened.. But he was so enamored with his buddy slowick he could not allow him the chance of success..

claymore
03-10-2009, 05:23 PM
Claymore, it honestly isn't worth my time arguing with someone who has no idea what they're talking about. You're saying I'm making up trades? Why on earth would Denver have to give up Cutler (Pro-Bowler) and #12 for Cassel a first and a third when Kansas City got Cassel for a second rounder?
Cause that is what was reported.
Tampa gives us a first and a 3rd.
We give Tampa Cutler
NE Gives us Cassel.
We give New England a 1st.


I am right in my diagnosis of what the trade would have been. I'm sorry you can't handle that; and for the record your ability to rewind a DVR and that you actually have that capability doesn't quantify what you're saying either. It is really a copout. Carry on though, I won't be participating.
You think your right. I think your wrong, and thats ,my opinion. Dont say I cant quantify, and I am making false statements when you are making up your own scenarios justifying your Madden video game trade based off of zero fact and pure speculation.

Fact is..... Best case scenario we get 2 Detroit first's, and only have to give up a second for Cassel.

That scenario is still a crap shoot talent wise, and now you have a shit ton of problems paying unproven athletes shit tons of money.

The trade would have resulted in an Unproven Player in Cassel, and even more uncertainty in the draft.

Rex
03-10-2009, 05:27 PM
Cause that is what was reported.
Tampa gives us a first and a 3rd.
We give Tampa Cutler
NE Gives us Cassel.
We give New England a 1st.


You think your right. I think your wrong, and thats ,my opinion. Dont say I cant quantify, and I am making false statements when you are making up your own scenarios justifying your Madden video game trade based off of zero fact and pure speculation.

Fact is..... Best case scenario we get 2 Detroit first's, and only have to give up a second for Cassel.

That scenario is still a crap shoot talent wise, and now you have a shit ton of problems paying unproven athletes shit tons of money.

The trade would have resulted in an Unproven Player in Cassel, and even more uncertainty in the draft.

You are a frickin retard.

claymore
03-10-2009, 05:31 PM
You are a frickin retard.

Which is a step above you mouth breather.

Rex
03-10-2009, 05:32 PM
Which is a step above you mouth breather.

You managed to spell "Breather" correctly you little fat almost midget.

DenBronx
03-10-2009, 05:33 PM
shannon actually had some good points on both sides of the article. "mcdaniels came in with a chain saw and asked questions later" i think mcdaniels and pretty much everyone who saw the broncos play last year could see we were really lacking football talent on the d. the draft hopefully will be targeting rookies on defense that will make this a better team in the long run.

claymore
03-10-2009, 05:35 PM
You managed to spell "Breather" correctly you little fat almost midget.

You can call me an almost midget, but you cant call me fat.

Rex
03-10-2009, 05:36 PM
You can call me an almost midget, but you cant call me fat.

Have you lost 50 lbs?

Sorry...Dee Cee got me fired up yesterday when he pole axed Joe.

claymore
03-10-2009, 05:37 PM
Have you lost 50 lbs?

Sorry...Dee Cee got me fired up yesterday when he pole axed Joe.

No, Ive lost 5 in a year. It could have been a dump though. I figure in 7 years I will be where I want.

Rex
03-10-2009, 05:37 PM
No, Ive lost 5 in a year. It could have been a dump though. I figure in 7 years I will be where I want.

Man. You must be working out hard.

claymore
03-10-2009, 05:38 PM
Man. You must be working out hard.

They moved the smoking area, Ive gotta walk a lot farther, and thru one sandy part.

Requiem / The Dagda
03-10-2009, 05:40 PM
Cause that is what was reported.
Tampa gives us a first and a 3rd.
We give Tampa Cutler
NE Gives us Cassel.
We give New England a 1st.

New England got a second for Cassel. What don't you get? We wouldn't have had to give them a first when they were more than find with what they got in return. That report was wrong, just as many have been over the past few weeks. I'm sorry that you bought into all this hook line and sinker. A lot of you did. That is why the boards blew up and people went crazy. . . over um. . . nothing?



You think your right. I think your wrong, and thats ,my opinion. Dont say I cant quantify, and I am making false statements when you are making up your own scenarios justifying your Madden video game trade based off of zero fact and pure speculation.

I am right; and the trade scenario I proposed is "less" Madden-like than yours. By the way, I don't even play Madden. Denver wouldn't have had to give New England a first-rounder and give up a Pro-Bowl player for what they would have received in return. I am not sure what is so hard to comprehend here. Kansas City gave up a second rounder. Why would we have to give up something much more?


The trade would have resulted in an Unproven Player in Cassel, and even more uncertainty in the draft.

Unproven player? He did well under McDaniels, playing under an offensive line that allowed 47 sacks where he was constantly under pressure and abused. Almost 4,000 all-purpose yards in his first time starting football. Great completion percentage and a 2-1 TD/INT ratio. Pretty damn good if you ask me. Getting that, and those additional picks would have been a pretty hot prospect if you're asking me.

claymore
03-10-2009, 05:48 PM
New England got a second for Cassel. What don't you get? We wouldn't have had to give them a first when they were more than find with what they got in return. That report was wrong, just as many have been over the past few weeks. I'm sorry that you bought into all this hook line and sinker. A lot of you did. That is why the boards blew up and people went crazy. . . over um. . . nothing?
You are talking out of your butt.



I am right; and the trade scenario I proposed is "less" Madden-like than yours. By the way, I don't even play Madden. Denver wouldn't have had to give New England a first-rounder and give up a Pro-Bowl player for what they would have received in return. I am not sure what is so hard to comprehend here. Kansas City gave up a second rounder. Why would we have to give up something much more?

Your not right. You made it up. Its only based on what you think coulda shoulda might have happened.

And KC might have been the only other suitor for Cassel. We just dont know. All the other teams probably thought Cassel was to much of a risk for a first day pick. We just dont know........


Unproven player? He did well under McDaniels, playing under an offensive line that allowed 47 sacks where he was constantly under pressure and abused. Almost 4,000 all-purpose yards in his first time starting football. Great completion percentage and a 2-1 TD/INT ratio. Pretty damn good if you ask me. Getting that, and those additional picks would have been a pretty hot prospect if you're asking me.
He did well Under Belichick's system. As It seems everyone does. Once they leave it, they do not fare so well though......

bullis26
03-10-2009, 05:52 PM
You are talking out of your butt.




Your not right. You made it up. Its only based on what you think coulda shoulda might have happened.

And KC might have been the only other suitor for Cassel. We just dont know. All the other teams probably thought Cassel was to much of a risk for a first day pick. We just dont know........


He did well Under Belichick's system. As It seems everyone does. Once they leave it, they do not fare so well though......

that's for the most part true but how about Asante Samuel,but otherwise true i think they coulda got more for cassall and vrabel though, they got a 1st rounder for deion branch, vrabel and cassell i think they should've been able to get something similar to that

Requiem / The Dagda
03-10-2009, 06:00 PM
He did well Under Belichick's system. As It seems everyone does. Once they leave it, they do not fare so well though......
I'm not sure if you heard the news, but Josh McDaniels' was calling the plays in New England.

claymore
03-10-2009, 06:13 PM
that's for the most part true but how about Asante Samuel,but otherwise true i think they coulda got more for cassall and vrabel though, they got a 1st rounder for deion branch, vrabel and cassell i think they should've been able to get something similar to that
I think stock in Patriots players kinda hit a wall like Denver Running backs did. Its the system thru and thru........ Off hand Samuels numbers dont jump out at me since he left the Pats. And if Cassel had another year with similar numbers I would have to agree that they could have gotten more.

I'm not sure if you heard the news, but Josh McDaniels' was calling the plays in New England.

Well Hopefully he can run an organization. So far I think he has gummed up the works.

elsid13
03-10-2009, 06:15 PM
I'm not sure if you heard the news, but Josh McDaniels' was calling the plays in New England.

The one thing people are forgetting there is a big difference in being a successful coordinator and being a Head Coach. Right now I see a guy that isn't willing to give up his old job and surrounding himself with his old toys to do his old job.

Shanahan was successful calling plays in the beginning because he brought Kubic with him to help implement the passing attack and relied on Gibbs to set up the running game. Right now it appears that McKid is attempting to do everything himself, based upon statements in he made in RMN and DP that he had to teach the offense to the coaches and was going to be heavily involved in the offense game planning.

claymore
03-10-2009, 06:21 PM
The one thing people are forgetting there is a big difference in being a successful coordinator and being a Head Coach. Right now I see a guy that isn't willing to give up his old job and surrounding himself with his old toys to do his old job.

Shanahan was successful calling plays in the beginning because he brought Kubic with him to help implement the passing attack and relied on Gibbs to set up the running game. Right now it appears that McKid is attempting to do everything himself, based upon statements in he made in RMN and DP that he had to teach the offense to the coaches and was going to be heavily involved in the offense game planning.

Throw Jeremy Bates and Jason Garrett into that argument!

rcsodak
03-11-2009, 12:09 AM
The one thing people are forgetting there is a big difference in being a successful coordinator and being a Head Coach. Right now I see a guy that isn't willing to give up his old job and surrounding himself with his old toys to do his old job.

Shanahan was successful calling plays in the beginning because he brought Kubic with him to help implement the passing attack and relied on Gibbs to set up the running game. Right now it appears that McKid is attempting to do everything himself, based upon statements in he made in RMN and DP that he had to teach the offense to the coaches and was going to be heavily involved in the offense game planning.

I'd say something by drawing a comparison, but it probably belongs in the Politics Forum..... :coffee

bullis26
03-11-2009, 12:12 AM
I think stock in Patriots players kinda hit a wall like Denver Running backs did. Its the system thru and thru........ Off hand Samuels numbers dont jump out at me since he left the Pats. And if Cassel had another year with similar numbers I would have to agree that they could have gotten more.


Well Hopefully he can run an organization. So far I think he has gummed up the works.

did you watch the playoffs? he had a pick 6 and then T jack didnt throw his way again.... pretty sure he had another pick against the giants, samuel is a post season BEAST