PDA

View Full Version : Rick Reilly rips into McDaniels



Hawgdriver
04-30-2009, 06:58 PM
from ESPN




LAST UPDATED 04.30.09

"How arrogant can Josh McDaniels be?"

The Denver Broncos' 33-year-old Boy Blunder boasted this week that his draft board had fewer than 100 names on it, which made it easy for him to make his picks. Less than a hundred names when 256 players were drafted? Most boards had 500-plus names on them! Furthermore, he said the Broncos had worked out nearly 30 players and all 10 of his choices were among those 30. In other words, "I'm not capable of making a mistake. If I didn't work the guy out, the guy wasn't good enough. Period." This is the same genius who traded one of Denver's first-round choices in 2010 to move up in the second round to take a 5'9'' defensive back—Alphonso Smith. To repeat: Boy Blunder used a first to take a second. And if the Broncos are going to be as lame as I think they're going to be—4-12 perhaps—that first-round pick will be very high. McDaniels is the worst combination of things: Terribly naïve and doubly confident. Bronco fans, you're screwed.

Chris90210
04-30-2009, 07:00 PM
link?

Hawgdriver
04-30-2009, 07:03 PM
link?

it's on the front page under Reilly

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/reillygofish

Chris90210
04-30-2009, 07:09 PM
it's on the front page under Reilly

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/reillygofishthanks i'm lazy

JKcatch724
04-30-2009, 07:13 PM
I love Rick Reilly, but he should know better than to jump off the deep end before McD is done creating his team...

nevcraw
04-30-2009, 07:14 PM
thanks i'm lazy

as long as it wasn't Mayock.. :lol:

BroncoJoe
04-30-2009, 07:14 PM
Who TF is Rick Reilly? Has he played professionally? Has he ever even coached pee-wee let alone college or professional football?

Give me a flippin' break.

Never Trust a Snake
04-30-2009, 07:17 PM
Who TF is Rick Reilly? Has he played professionally? Has he ever even coached pee-wee let alone college or professional football?

Give me a flippin' break.

I bet you were singing Reilly's praises when he was writing about Elway being better than Montana.

BroncoJoe
04-30-2009, 07:29 PM
I bet you were singing Reilly's praises when he was writing about Elway being better than Montana.

Honestly? I really don't pay much attention to these idiots who have no real life experience. I wait to see the product on the field, but that's just me.

Thanks for playing, though.

topscribe
04-30-2009, 07:30 PM
I bet you were singing Reilly's praises when he was writing about Elway being better than Montana.

So, did you know Joe back then? :coffee:

-----

tomjonesrocks
04-30-2009, 07:30 PM
Am in full agreement. Here here, Rick...

BroncoJoe
04-30-2009, 07:34 PM
So, did you know Joe back then? :coffee:

-----

He probably wasn't even born back then.

Tempus Fugit
04-30-2009, 07:39 PM
from ESPN

Terrible blurb on several levels, but the simple way to put it is just to point out that another way to look at this is that McDaniels was focused and knew exactly what he wanted to accomplish in the draft.

Ravage!!!
04-30-2009, 07:46 PM
Who TF is Rick Reilly? Has he played professionally? Has he ever even coached pee-wee let alone college or professional football?

Give me a flippin' break.

So what you are saying is... no one can have an opinion unless they played professionally or has coached at some level.

What about all the guys on NFL network and ESPN that were bashing McDaniels during the draft about his mistakes?? Does their opinion count since they met those qualifications?

topscribe
04-30-2009, 07:49 PM
So what you are saying is... no one can have an opinion unless they played professionally or has coached at some level.

What about all the guys on NFL network and ESPN that were bashing McDaniels during the draft about his mistakes?? Does their opinion count since they met those qualifications?

I think Joe was just reacting the same way I did to the extreme remark by
Reilly. I haven't been a big fan of McDaniels' by any stretch, but Reilly was
over the top, IMO.

-----

OrangeHoof
04-30-2009, 07:52 PM
Reilly can be a dunce sometimes but I'm afraid he's probably correct here. I don't think McDiapers knows the first thing about putting together a defense. He hasn't shown anything yet to tell me he "gets it". He just wants to play OC and expects the defense to magically heal itself.

honz
04-30-2009, 08:01 PM
Reilly can be a dunce sometimes but I'm afraid he's probably correct here. I don't think McDiapers knows the first thing about putting together a defense. He hasn't shown anything yet to tell me he "gets it". He just wants to play OC and expects the defense to magically heal itself.
Is that why he cut half our starters and brought in like 10 defensive FA's or so?

BroncoJoe
04-30-2009, 08:09 PM
So what you are saying is... no one can have an opinion unless they played professionally or has coached at some level.

What about all the guys on NFL network and ESPN that were bashing McDaniels during the draft about his mistakes?? Does their opinion count since they met those qualifications?

No, what I am saying is the same as I state every year.

I'll wait to see the product on the field before making any judgments. No one, including the so called "experts" have any idea how we are going to play next year. If he's right, congrats. If not, who really gives a damn?

Is that really all that hard to understand?

BroncoJoe
04-30-2009, 08:10 PM
Is that why he cut half our starters and brought in like 10 defensive FA's or so?

And fired our defensive staff and hired new?

Yeah. He's not doing anything.

:tsk:

roomemp
04-30-2009, 08:13 PM
I bet you were singing Reilly's praises when he was writing about Elway being better than Montana.

I bet you are one of those guys who hates just for the sake of hating. I haven't seen a positive post yet.

roomemp
04-30-2009, 08:16 PM
I just don't get it. McDaniels is looking for people who fit his system. WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL?????? If 250 people fit his system, I am sure he would have 250 on his board. The dude wants players that will fit the mold of the team while not wasting Mr. Bowlen's money.

roomemp
04-30-2009, 08:19 PM
Reilly can be a dunce sometimes but I'm afraid he's probably correct here. I don't think McDiapers knows the first thing about putting together a defense. He hasn't shown anything yet to tell me he "gets it". He just wants to play OC and expects the defense to magically heal itself.

Yeah I know. He should have signed Canty, Ray Lewis, Haynesworth, and traded for Peppers in the offseason. :tsk:

Bozo Jr.
04-30-2009, 08:25 PM
It reads like a middle school essay!

Anyway who is RR, Oh it's nobody. :rolleyes:

roomemp
04-30-2009, 08:26 PM
It reads like a middle school essay!

Anyway who is RR, Oh it's nobody. :rolleyes:

Just another scrub white collared reporter who gets paid for writing nonsense.

Nomad
04-30-2009, 08:28 PM
It reads like a middle school essay!

Anyway who is RR, Oh it's nobody. :rolleyes:

:whoknows: I thought he was a basketball writer, not very good either!! Talking football was surprise, but by all means I guess he and others can speak their minds even though I don't agree!!

NameUsedBefore
04-30-2009, 08:33 PM
Rick Reilly is one of if not the greatest sports writer ever.

Does that give him inherent cred? No, but he's somebody.

Ravage!!!
04-30-2009, 08:35 PM
No, what I am saying is the same as I state every year.

I'll wait to see the product on the field before making any judgments. No one, including the so called "experts" have any idea how we are going to play next year. If he's right, congrats. If not, who really gives a damn?

Is that really all that hard to understand?

alright. So whether or not a person plays professional football, or coaches at any level, doesn't really have anything to do with your problem with his statements then.

I guess I don't understand why people get so upset if a writer WRITES in an article what so many people are thinking?

If we are going to play the "wait and see game"... then NO ONE should predict the season. No one can say we are going to do well... no one can say that they are EXCITED to have Moreno... because its just a 'wait and see.' We may find that we shouldn't be excited.

I'm only using your quote and comments because they are the same that so many have expressed, and not you specifically. But it seems that the fans that say "positive" things around here are agreed with and patted on the back, and the ones that have a negative outlook on this offseason get the "you haven't seen anything, lets wait and see." Same thing with the articles that are quoted/posted.

Problem is, the opinion outside of Bronco-fanhood is getting a lot of criticisms because our off-season has been SOOOO completely opposite of what most would consider to be a GOOD offseason. So until our team proves them wrong, we will have to accept that most are NOT going to simply have the "lets wait and see" just as they aren't going to 'wait and see' for the other 31 teams.

BroncoJoe
04-30-2009, 08:35 PM
Rick Reilly is one of if not the greatest sports writer ever.

Does that give him inherent cred? No, but he's somebody.

:confused:

Hobe
04-30-2009, 08:38 PM
Frankly, I haven't turned ESPN on in over a year. I use to watch them at least once a day during football season and most days other wise. There are a few folks that I would like to see and hear, but they lost IT.

Needless to say, I don't know know who Rick Reilly is, or care. Did he like Elway? Oh, points for him!

As far as the McD/X regime, the draft and all the rest goes, I've taken refuge in a safe little place I call, "Wait and see!"

Dreadnought
04-30-2009, 08:39 PM
No, what I am saying is the same as I state every year.

I'll wait to see the product on the field before making any judgments. No one, including the so called "experts" have any idea how we are going to play next year. If he's right, congrats. If not, who really gives a damn?

Is that really all that hard to understand?

Joe - you know I love you like my long lost brother of the Mountain West, but I fear you are setting yourself up for bitter disillusionment here. Wanting to see the product is valid, but so is making a (semi)educated guess as to what that product will be. At risk of beating that dead horse just a bit more the guy's character tells me what we're about to see ain't gonna be pretty.

Well, one of us will be wrong about McD by New Years day, and I hope like Hell its me :D

BroncoJoe
04-30-2009, 08:41 PM
alright. So whether or not a person plays professional football, or coaches at any level, doesn't really have anything to do with your problem with his statements then.

I guess I don't understand why people get so upset if a writer WRITES in an article what so many people are thinking?

If we are going to play the "wait and see game"... then NO ONE should predict the season. No one can say we are going to do well... no one can say that they are EXCITED to have Moreno... because its just a 'wait and see.' We may find that we shouldn't be excited.

I'm only using your quote and comments because they are the same that so many have expressed, and not you specifically. But it seems that the fans that say "positive" things around here are agreed with and patted on the back, and the ones that have a negative outlook on this offseason get the "you haven't seen anything, lets wait and see." Same thing with the articles that are quoted/posted.

Problem is, the opinion outside of Bronco-fanhood is getting a lot of criticisms because our off-season has been SOOOO completely opposite of what most would consider to be a GOOD offseason. So until our team proves them wrong, we will have to accept that most are NOT going to simply have the "lets wait and see" just as they aren't going to 'wait and see' for the other 31 teams.

People can post their opinions.

As can I. I really don't care if you like my "wait and see" attitude" or not. I've lived through enough Broncos seasons to realize you just never know what to expect, regardless of who is writing what, who was acquired, who was waived, what coach got fired or hired. In the end, it comes down to how they perform on the field, not what someone writes in April/May. Our draft picks and acquisitions could be busts. They also could be another Rod Smith or Terrell Davis. No one knows, is my point.

That's just me, though.

BroncoJoe
04-30-2009, 08:43 PM
Joe - you know I love you like my long lost brother of the Mountain West, but I fear you are setting yourself up for bitter disillusionment here. Wanting to see the product is valid, but so is making a (semi)educated guess as to what that product will be. At risk of beating that dead horse just a bit more the guy's character tells me what we're about to see ain't gonna be pretty.

Well, one of us will be wrong about McD by New Years day, and I hope like Hell its me :D

We shall see, my Eastern Brother. I'm not a pessimistic person. I think McDaniels has a plan, and I look forward to seeing it on the field next year.

BTW, does anyone really think Shanahan would have a better record next year?

honz
04-30-2009, 08:44 PM
I would have taken the wait and see approach with Shanahan too...wait and see Slowick and co. field another pathetic defense next year.

Ravage!!!
04-30-2009, 08:44 PM
We shall see, my Eastern Brother. I'm not a pessimistic person. I think McDaniels has a plan, and I look forward to seeing it on the field next year.

BTW, does anyone really think Shanahan would have a better record next year?

a better record than what? Then what McDaniels will have? Hmmm.... don't know. Guess we'll have to wait and see what it is first.

Dreadnought
04-30-2009, 08:45 PM
We shall see, my Eastern Brother. I'm not a pessimistic person. I think McDaniels has a plan, and I look forward to seeing it on the field next year.

BTW, does anyone really think Shanahan would have a better record next year?

Me. I do, with all my heart and soul. If only he had the sense to have canned that chump Slowick we'd be looking at a Playoff contender now, schedule notwithstanding.

roomemp
04-30-2009, 08:53 PM
:tsk:McDaniels sucks because he is winless as a head coach :tsk:

NameUsedBefore
04-30-2009, 08:55 PM
Well, to some it honestly looks like McDaniels is driving the Broncos off a cliff.

BroncoJoe
04-30-2009, 08:59 PM
Me. I do, with all my heart and soul. If only he had the sense to have canned that chump Slowick we'd be looking at a Playoff contender now, schedule notwithstanding.

Why though? Because he drafted defensive players so well? Because he's been a pedestrian coach ever since Elway left?

Don't get me wrong, I hold Shanahan very high in opinion. But it's a bit hard looking at the past decade and giving him a ton of props. It was time for a change and change we're getting.

Jimmy Johnson wasn't a popular replacement for the legendary Tom Landry. He went 1-15 his first year. Won a couple SuperBowls a few years later.

I'm willing to sit tight, and see what happens.

Superchop 7
04-30-2009, 08:59 PM
Rick Reilly is my favorite sports writer.

He mirrors what alot of people are thinking.

Like it or not.

I know alot of people want to be optomistic, but there are football realities.

He is setting us backwards, not forwards.

He is a good offensive mind.

Lousy head coach.

honz
04-30-2009, 09:00 PM
Eh, we lost a good QB with terrible redzone efficiency. He had a lot of talent, but I was never sold on his intangibles. Other than that, we have almost certainly improved at almost every other position. Hopefully Orton can step up for us, if not we have Tom Brandstater waiting in the wings. ;) Cutler wasn't the last talented QB to ever come out of the college ranks or hit free agency.

Dreadnought
04-30-2009, 09:00 PM
McDaniels sucks because he has never won a game as a head coach :tsk:

I'm more concerned that he is so infatuated with his system and abilities that he makes the judgment that guys he has never coached, seen in live contact practice, observed in the Locker Room, etc. can't play in it nearly sight unseen. The roster got purged too fast, and Reilly's observations on the draft kind of track with the pattern of a very bright guy too young and too arrogant to be ready to do this thing. This was not a 3-13 train wreck of a team he inherited after all - it was the best coaching gig available after the 08 season. He is blowing it up anyway. This is what has made no sense to me.

BroncoJoe
04-30-2009, 09:03 PM
Rick Reilly is my favorite sports writer.

He mirrors what alot of people are thinking.

Like it or not.

I know alot of people want to be optomistic, but there are football realities.

He is setting us backwards, not forwards.

He is a good offensive mind.

Lousy head coach.

And you have no idea if that is true or not.

That's the point.

honz
04-30-2009, 09:04 PM
I'm more concerned that he is so infatuated with his system and abilities that he makes the judgment that guys he has never coached, seen in live contact practice, observed in the Locker Room, etc. can't play in it nearly sight unseen. The roster got purged too fast, and Reilly's observations on the draft kind of track with the pattern of a very bright guy too young and too arrogant to be ready to do this thing. This was not a 3-13 train wreck of a team he inherited after all - it was the best coaching gig available after the 08 season. He is blowing it up anyway. This is what has made no sense to me.
He blew up our worthless defense. What he did exactly in the Cutler situation has been debated enough...and I guess if you truly feel that McDaniels intent was to run him out of town then I can't fault your opinion there. I would most certainly disagree though.

roomemp
04-30-2009, 09:04 PM
Rick Reilly is my favorite sports writer.

He mirrors what alot of people are thinking.

Like it or not.

I know alot of people want to be optomistic, but there are football realities.

He is setting us backwards, not forwards.

He is a good offensive mind.

Lousy head coach.

Now see. That is the definition of a horrible sports writer. He just writes stuff that some people will agree with.

I great sports writer is unbias and is not swayed by public opinion. A good sports writer looks at both sides of an issue.

This scrub just bascially said McDaniels is a bum because he is not like the majority of NFL head coaches. Blah Blah Blah.

Ravage!!!
04-30-2009, 09:05 PM
Eh, we lost a good QB with terrible redzone efficiency. He had a lot of talent, but I was never sold on his intangibles. Other than that, we have almost certainly improved at almost every other position. Hopefully Orton can step up for us, if not we have Tom Brandstater waiting in the wings. ;) Cutler wasn't the last talented QB to ever come out of the college ranks or hit free agency.

I wonder how many times the Detroit Lions, San Frans, Buffalo's.. Miami's...Kansas Cities... Oaklands....Tampa Bays...Chicagos...NY Jets...... have said the same thing?

roomemp
04-30-2009, 09:06 PM
Now see. That is the definition of a horrible sports writer. He just writes stuff that some people will agree with.

I great sports writer is unbias and is not swayed by public opinion. A good sports writer looks at both sides of an issue.

This scrub just bascially said McDaniels is a bum because he is not like the majority of NFL head coaches. Blah Blah Blah.


In addition, how could you say he is stinks as a head coach.... HE HASN"T COACHED A GAME YET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ravage!!!
04-30-2009, 09:07 PM
Now see. That is the definition of a horrible sports writer. He just writes stuff that some people will agree with.

I great sports writer is unbias and is not swayed by public opinion. A good sports writer looks at both sides of an issue.

This scrub just bascially said McDaniels is a bum because he is not like the majority of NFL head coaches. Blah Blah Blah.

No...

Its called sensationalism... and its an opinion. He doesn't (and most Certainly SHOULDN'T) have to write "both sides".. since his opinion is the opinion that creates reaction. He's not there to 'get both sides of the story'.. he's there to write his opinion, popular or not.

A great sportswriter does NOT have to be 'unbias'... because he's not being bias..he's just taking an opinion, a stance, and expressing it.

NameUsedBefore
04-30-2009, 09:07 PM
Now see. That is the definition of a horrible sports writer. He just writes stuff that some people will agree with.

I great sports writer is unbias and is not swayed by public opinion. A good sports writer looks at both sides of an issue.

This scrub just bascially said McDaniels is a bum because he is not like the majority of NFL head coaches. Blah Blah Blah.

Lol.

Anyway, Dread hit the nail on the head. Denver was the coach opening. All anyone had to do was come in and tidy up the defense. I don't see how blowing up the offense and then doing the same thing we've always had on the defense is the right idea. The former is just plain dumb and I'm awestruck at it; the latter is the same old game with a different coach.

Chidoze
04-30-2009, 09:08 PM
I like Rick Reily. He usually has some great insight while writing his articles for SI. I have to agree with him on trading the No. 1 next year to Seattle for Smith.

I like Smith though, but is he going to be worth that No. 1 that the Broncos traded for him? Time will tell I suppose, but thats a big gamble to wait on.

The Broncos could have the bottom fall out this season and win 5 or less games, and their pick would be in the top 10, but Seattle will get it. I guess McDaniels is either somewhat of a gambler to trade it away, extremely confident that his system will win more than 8 games, or something worse.

I am surprised at how his draft came together, it was very balanced on both sides of the ball. Considering most people thought he would draft heavily on the defensive side, he nearly split the draft between offense and defense. I think it was somewhere like 6 offensive players and 4 defensive players. Most of the later picks, I'm assuming he picked to help out the special teams units, and possibly compete for starting positions in a few years.

So, I guess we'll have to wait and see, but right now, McDaniels has to be the ballsiest person in Colorado, or the NFL for that matter, to do what he's done in these last few months. Trade his franchise pro bowl QB, release numerous holdovers from the Shanahan regime, sign a boatload of questionable free agents, and make some risky decisions in the draft.

He's definitely putting his stamp on the Denver Broncos. For better or worse, it's his team now.

:salute:

honz
04-30-2009, 09:08 PM
I wonder how many times the Detroit Lions, San Frans, Buffalo's.. Miami's...Kansas Cities... Oaklands....Tampa Bays...Chicagos...NY Jets...... have said the same thing?

Or the Colts, Chargers, Patriots, Saints, Packers, Bengals, etc...

Ravage!!!
04-30-2009, 09:10 PM
Or the Colts, Chargers, Patriots, Saints, Packers, Bengals, etc...

How many QBs did the Colts have to go through before Manning??? How many before the Saints got Brees? The Bengals? Perfect example for me... how many first and TOP picks did they use on QBs before finding Palmer (who STILL has not lived up to his billing).... so thank you :beer:

roomemp
04-30-2009, 09:12 PM
Lol.

Anyway, Dread hit the nail on the head. Denver was the coach opening. All anyone had to do was come in and tidy up the defense. I don't see how blowing up the offense and then doing the same thing we've always had on the defense is the right idea. The former is just plain dumb and I'm awestruck at it; the latter is the same old game with a different coach.

Yeah just a little house cleaning....You know all the new coach needed was just a couple players, including... a nose tackle, 2 DE, 4 LB, 2, CB 2 S, A new defensive c. , a running back, and a back up QB. We were so dang close to a super bowl too. Curse you coach McDaniels :tsk:

Dreadnought
04-30-2009, 09:12 PM
Why though? Because he drafted defensive players so well? Because he's been a pedestrian coach ever since Elway left?

Don't get me wrong, I hold Shanahan very high in opinion. But it's a bit hard looking at the past decade and giving him a ton of props. It was time for a change and change we're getting.

Jimmy Johnson wasn't a popular replacement for the legendary Tom Landry. He went 1-15 his first year. Won a couple SuperBowls a few years later.

I'm willing to sit tight, and see what happens.

His draft picks prior to the Goodmans getting more involved were poor, no question about it.

A lot depends on what you take as your givens. I don't want to revive this old battle (God knows) but given that I think Jake Plummer was always an awful NFL QB the coaching Shanny did in 2005 was brilliant. If you like Plummer that doesn't hold quite as true of course. Given that the defense was an abomination the last two years, and especially bad last year, the 8-8 record was damned good, and a credit to his offensive mind and to Jay Cutler. After all, in 1994 John Elway played one of his best Seasons to that point and finished with a 7-9 record, due mostly to a crap defense that was not quite as dismal as that turd pile we suffered through watching last year. To then say Elway sucked because he was 7-9 would be a ridiculous case of misdiagnosis, yet I see that same kind of logic here daily applied to last year's team. Its pretty silly. The first step in fixing something that busted is identify why its busted. I think we misdiagnosed this one, and badly.

Ravage!!!
04-30-2009, 09:12 PM
In addition, how could you say he is stinks as a head coach.... HE HASN"T COACHED A GAME YET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Funny how people think that a HC has to do more than just coach games.

MOtorboat
04-30-2009, 09:17 PM
Me. I do, with all my heart and soul. If only he had the sense to have canned that chump Slowick we'd be looking at a Playoff contender now, schedule notwithstanding.

And, right now we'd probably be screaming as Shanahan came back with virtually the same defense, drafted a running back and hired a new defensive coordinator.

roomemp
04-30-2009, 09:18 PM
No...

Its called sensationalism... and its an opinion. He doesn't (and most Certainly SHOULDN'T) have to write "both sides".. since his opinion is the opinion that creates reaction. He's not there to 'get both sides of the story'.. he's there to write his opinion, popular or not.

A great sportswriter does NOT have to be 'unbias'... because he's not being bias..he's just taking an opinion, a stance, and expressing it.

A great sportswriter is unbias............Unfortuntely very very few exist today. A great sportswriter has a passion and respect for the game they are covering. They offer both sides, offer an opinion for both sides and let the reader or viewer arrive at their opinion. Most sportswriters today are just after money and exposure. "They carry the, "let me say something bold so I can get my name known" Most sportswriters today are garbage.....A prime example is this dude. No respect to the game, its followers, and its members.

dogfish
04-30-2009, 09:18 PM
So what you are saying is... no one can have an opinion unless they played professionally or has coached at some level.

What about all the guys on NFL network and ESPN that were bashing McDaniels during the draft about his mistakes?? Does their opinion count since they met those qualifications?

shut up and get you pom-poms out. . . .

:lol:



joe looks surprisingly good in those short little cheerleader skirts. . . . :shocked:

MOtorboat
04-30-2009, 09:18 PM
His draft picks prior to the Goodmans getting more involved were poor, no question about it.

Except on defense, then they just sucked all the time.

honz
04-30-2009, 09:18 PM
How many QBs did the Colts have to go through before Manning??? How many before the Saints got Brees? The Bengals? Perfect example for me... how many first and TOP picks did they use on QBs before finding Palmer (who STILL has not lived up to his billing).... so thank you :beer:
There are plenty of teams that consistently find good QB's and with a QB guru as a head coach I like our chances if the current crop ends up not working out. We can go back and forth with examples, but there are examples that go both ways...like what good did Dan Marino really do the Dolphins?

Plus, I don't fault McDaniels for Cutler leaving...personally I fault Jay, so that's obviously going to alter our viewpoints.

MOtorboat
04-30-2009, 09:19 PM
A great sportswriter is unbias............Unfortuntely very very few exist today. A great sportswriter has a passion and respect for the game they are covering. They offer both sides, offer an opinion for both sides and let the reader or viewer arrive at their opinion. Most sportswriters today are just after money and exposure. "They carry the, "let me say something bold so I can get my name known" Most sportswriters today are garbage.

Bull. Go read some of the stuff written years ago. They were lap dogs for the team. They partied and roomed with the players, made up stories and rambled on and on about their great feats.

There is bias in everything if you look hard enough.

BroncoJoe
04-30-2009, 09:22 PM
Lol.

Anyway, Dread hit the nail on the head. Denver was the coach opening. All anyone had to do was come in and tidy up the defense. I don't see how blowing up the offense and then doing the same thing we've always had on the defense is the right idea. The former is just plain dumb and I'm awestruck at it; the latter is the same old game with a different coach.

Right. Because we've won SO many games with our brilliant #2 offense.

They didn't score points. Gave the ball up. Put the defense on a short field.

You're right. Our offense was outstanding.

roomemp
04-30-2009, 09:23 PM
Bull. Go read some of the stuff written years ago. They were lap dogs for the team. They partied and roomed with the players, made up stories and rambled on and on about their great feats.

There is bias in everything if you look hard enough.

Of course there is. Unfortuntely we do not live in a utopian society.

Dreadnought
04-30-2009, 09:24 PM
And, right now we'd probably be screaming as Shanahan came back with virtually the same defense, drafted a running back and hired a new defensive coordinator.

I would have flipped out regardless over the draft. Every football fan has their quirks, and one of mine is that I believe you should never, ever, use a number one pick on a RB. I am a staunch believer in RBBC, and always have been

topscribe
04-30-2009, 09:26 PM
I would have flipped out regardless over the draft. Every football fan has their quirks, and one of mine is that I believe you should never, ever, use a number one pick on a RB. I am a staunch believer in RBBC, and always have been

Well, that would depend, Dread, wouldn't it? I mean, if you have a TD or a
Jim Brown, you want him in there, don't you?

Nonetheless, I salivate at the thought of a Moreno/Hillis platoon . . .

-----

BroncoJoe
04-30-2009, 09:26 PM
His draft picks prior to the Goodmans getting more involved were poor, no question about it.

A lot depends on what you take as your givens. I don't want to revive this old battle (God knows) but given that I think Jake Plummer was always an awful NFL QB the coaching Shanny did in 2005 was brilliant. If you like Plummer that doesn't hold quite as true of course. Given that the defense was an abomination the last two years, and especially bad last year, the 8-8 record was damned good, and a credit to his offensive mind and to Jay Cutler. After all, in 1994 John Elway played one of his best Seasons to that point and finished with a 7-9 record, due mostly to a crap defense that was not quite as dismal as that turd pile we suffered through watching last year. To then say Elway sucked because he was 7-9 would be a ridiculous case of misdiagnosis, yet I see that same kind of logic here daily applied to last year's team. Its pretty silly. The first step in fixing something that busted is identify why its busted. I think we misdiagnosed this one, and badly.

I agree, but that '94 offense also turned the ball over 40 times. 40 times, Dread. Last year, our "vaunted" offense turned the ball over 36 times. I believe there is a direct correlation.

It wasn't all on the defense. You guys need to realize that before you can move forward.

getlynched47
04-30-2009, 09:27 PM
owned :lol:

weazel
04-30-2009, 09:28 PM
thanks Rick, I'm glad that a guy who went to school to be a journalist thinks he knows more about football than the guys getting paid to do it.

I do think it's odd that he only had 100 guys on the board though, seems pretty thin

Dreadnought
04-30-2009, 09:28 PM
Well, that would depend, Dread, wouldn't it? I mean, if you have a TD or a
Jim Brown, you want him in there, don't you?

Nonetheless, I salivate at the thought of a Moreno/Hillis platoon . . .

-----

You promise me Jimmy Brown or Floyd Little and I'll blow the number 1 :lol:

Even there, when you look at it Floyd Little and TD were not productive for all that many years. Few RB's are in a 'featured Back" system

getlynched47
04-30-2009, 09:28 PM
thanks Rick, I'm glad that a guy who went to school to be a journalist thinks he knows more about football than the guys getting paid to do it.

:yawn

owned :lol:

topscribe
04-30-2009, 09:35 PM
You promise me Jimmy Brown or Floyd Little and I'll blow the number 1 :lol:

Even there, when you look at it Floyd Little and TD were not productive for all that many years. Few RB's are in a 'featured Back" system

They do take an awful beating. That's why I would like to see Hillis delivering
some beatings while Moreno takes breaks from taking them. http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh256/AZDynamics/Smilies/thdrink.gif

-----

Ravage!!!
04-30-2009, 09:36 PM
A great sportswriter is unbias............Unfortuntely very very few exist today. A great sportswriter has a passion and respect for the game they are covering. They offer both sides, offer an opinion for both sides and let the reader or viewer arrive at their opinion. Most sportswriters today are just after money and exposure. "They carry the, "let me say something bold so I can get my name known" Most sportswriters today are garbage.....A prime example is this dude. No respect to the game, its followers, and its members.

again.. wrong.

he's not writing a "piece" to show both sides of some heart felt story. He's writing his opinion.. PERIOD. You don't have to show 'both sides of your opinion'.. thats just incorrect thinking, and not even in the same realm of his piece.

I find it interesting that you don't think a person, a writer, a columnist, can't write his OPINION strongly simply because its not flowery with the 'both sides of the coin' perspective.

hotcarl
04-30-2009, 09:36 PM
They do take an awful beating. That's why I would like to see Hillis delivering
some beatings while Moreno takes breaks from taking them. http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh256/AZDynamics/Smilies/thdrink.gif

-----

or maybe tatum bell???

roomemp
04-30-2009, 09:45 PM
again.. wrong.

he's not writing a "piece" to show both sides of some heart felt story. He's writing his opinion.. PERIOD. You don't have to show 'both sides of your opinion'.. thats just incorrect thinking, and not even in the same realm of his piece.

I find it interesting that you don't think a person, a writer, a columnist, can't write his OPINION strongly simply because its not flowery with the 'both sides of the coin' perspective.

Most good reporters worry about there integrity and reputation. I guess this guy cares about neither. Thats all I am saying

roomemp
04-30-2009, 09:46 PM
I find it interesting that you don't think a person, a writer, a columnist, can't write his OPINION strongly simply because its not flowery with the 'both sides of the coin' perspective.[/QUOTE]

I do think reporters can write that stuff. In the super market tabloids

OrangeHoof
04-30-2009, 09:50 PM
Is that why he cut half our starters and brought in like 10 defensive FA's or so?

It's called rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. They've added *bodies* but they haven't added players.

Ravage!!!
04-30-2009, 09:52 PM
Most good reporters worry about there integrity and reputation. I guess this guy cares about neither. Thats all I am saying

I hear what you are saying. But I think you are mistaking his 'piece'.... when what he's writing isn't meant to show both sides or to be indepth.

As I was saying... its sensationalism. He's FULLY expressing HIS opinion purely for the sake of getting a reaction, pro or con. What I'm saying, is that just because he's expressing his opinion, doesn't mean he should be looked upon as if he SHOULD look at both sides of an opinion. He's not doing an indepth, investigative, piece here.

honz
04-30-2009, 09:53 PM
It's called rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. They've added *bodies* but they haven't added players.

They added several proven starters from very solid defenses.

Shazam!
04-30-2009, 10:01 PM
I wish people would stop crying about them trading a 1st. Denver had 2 1sts for the first time in how long? Ever? The financial burden that does in a slalary cap era two years in a row? Granted the gamble has to pay and he didn't get a DLinemen, THAT would've been much better onbviously, but can't really fault him for trading the pick for the guy he wants. Let's hope Smith is good. Does anyone remember us crucifying Bly? They needed a CB too.

Never Trust a Snake
04-30-2009, 10:06 PM
I bet you are one of those guys who hates just for the sake of hating. I haven't seen a positive post yet.

From Reeves to Shanahan, I was the ultimate homer. I was never this negative. I loved everything Broncos.

I have seen enough from McDaniels to know that he is a lying snake. I hate his press conferences. He has no personality or charisma. I hate everything he stands for. He's way over his head.

OrangeHoof
04-30-2009, 10:08 PM
a better record than what? Then what McDaniels will have?

I guess it depends on whether you like being 8-8 or 4-12 (not to mention having your #1 choice in 2010 traded away for a dwarf cornerback). If Shanahan was still coach, we'd still score around 30 pts a game and even if the defense sucked, we'd have a chance to add a few more pieces in the draft because we wouldn't be changing the entire scheme to a 3-4, requiring wholesale changes that put players out of position.

I think the "wait and see" crowd just can't admit to themselves what a cluster---k this new coach has been from the get-go. Shanahan had his flaws but (except for 2000), he always had the Broncos competitive.

If McDiapers posts a 10-win season before he gets fired, I'll drive up from Texas on the coldest night of the winter and kiss a lamp post in the Invesco Field parking lot. And you guys can put it on YouTube.

OrangeHoof
04-30-2009, 10:10 PM
They added several proven starters from very solid defenses.

Besides Dawkins, name one.

roomemp
04-30-2009, 10:13 PM
From Reeves to Shanahan, I was the ultimate homer. I was never this negative. I loved everything Broncos.

I have seen enough from McDaniels to know that he is a lying snake. I hate his press conferences. He has no personality or charisma. I hate everything he stands for. He's way over his head.

Would your opinion change if he took the Broncos to the Playoffs?

BroncoJoe
04-30-2009, 10:14 PM
Would your opinion change if he took the Broncos to the Playoffs?

Definitely.

topscribe
04-30-2009, 10:19 PM
Besides Dawkins, name one.

Andre Goodman, Renaldo Hill, Andra Davis.

Oh, you said only one. Sorry . . .

-----

nevcraw
04-30-2009, 10:20 PM
I wish people would stop crying about them trading a 1st. Denver had 2 1sts for the first time in how long? Ever? The financial burden that does in a slalary cap era two years in a row? Granted the gamble has to pay and he didn't get a DLinemen, THAT would've been much better onbviously, but can't really fault him for trading the pick for the guy he wants. Let's hope Smith is good. Does anyone remember us crucifying Bly? They needed a CB too.

I wish people would stop worrying about the cash flow of the broncos.. They can afford it..
they finally get the picks to rebuild the team with top end talent and decided to gamble on one player.. time will tell.. i like the player just concerned about what they may eventually give up. top end D linemen? Franchise QB?
I guess we shall see..

getlynched47
04-30-2009, 10:20 PM
I wish people would stop crying about them trading a 1st. Denver had 2 1sts for the first time in how long? Ever? The financial burden that does in a slalary cap era two years in a row? Granted the gamble has to pay and he didn't get a DLinemen, THAT would've been much better onbviously, but can't really fault him for trading the pick for the guy he wants. Let's hope Smith is good. Does anyone remember us crucifying Bly? They needed a CB too.

I wish people would stop crying about other posters giving their opposing opinions out for debate.

honz
04-30-2009, 10:21 PM
Besides Dawkins, name one.

Davis, Hill, Goodman on defense. Nolan knows what he is getting with Fields.

We brought in proven ST's players in Reid and Greisen.

We drafted what some say is one of the best defensive players in the draft, and 2 of the best ballhawks in the draft. We also drafted one of the best ST's players in the draft.

JKcatch724
04-30-2009, 10:23 PM
I wish people would stop crying about other posters giving their opposing opinions out for debate.

Are you serious? This snake dude has no ******* clue what he's trying to say.

OrangeHoof
04-30-2009, 10:24 PM
Andre Goodman, Renaldo Hill, Andra Davis.

Oh, you said only one. Sorry . . .

-----

The Dolphins were ready to unload Goodman. Hill and Davis? Wait. I thought he said "solid" defenses.
:confused:

topscribe
04-30-2009, 10:26 PM
The Dolphins were ready to unload Goodman. Hill and Davis? Wait. I thought he said "solid" defenses.
:confused:

If you are viewing the league from the Broncos' POV, they're all solid . . . http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh256/AZDynamics/Smilies/thugh.gif

-----

honz
04-30-2009, 10:26 PM
The Dolphins were ready to unload Goodman. Hill and Davis? Wait. I thought he said "solid" defenses.
:confused:
Miami's defense was great last year. Cleveland's was probably mediocre, but it was better than ours...plus Davis knows the 3-4.

OrangeHoof
04-30-2009, 10:30 PM
Face it, folks. If the Raiders had the same offseason we have just had, you guys would be laughing your asses off about it...as well you should. It's only because it is YOUR team that you want to drink the kool-aid and believe this is all peaches and cream. I guess you can hold that position until we actually start losing games but the team in place right now is not very good and won't stop anybody.

honz
04-30-2009, 10:32 PM
Face it, folks. If the Raiders had the same offseason we have just had, you guys would be laughing your asses off about it...as well you should. It's only because it is YOUR team that you want to drink the kool-aid and believe this is all peaches and cream. I guess you can hold that position until we actually start losing games but the team in place right now is not very good and won't stop anybody.
I would say that they are at least trying to get better. The Raiders brought in two new OLineman via FA. I would also laugh my ass off at their former crybaby QB that I hated anyways.

G_Money
04-30-2009, 10:38 PM
Now see. That is the definition of a horrible sports writer. He just writes stuff that some people will agree with.

I great sports writer is unbias and is not swayed by public opinion. A good sports writer looks at both sides of an issue.

This scrub just bascially said McDaniels is a bum because he is not like the majority of NFL head coaches. Blah Blah Blah.

Reilly is not a journalist, he's an editorialist. He's paid to be brash and have an opinion, not to fact-check or have sources.

Rick Reilly is no more educated about the Broncos than anyone on this board. Less so, probably - he likely shopped around here for some fuel before eating donuts and writing his piece.

He has an opinion, but his paid opinion is not more or less valid because he was paid to put it to paper.

There are things that he writes that I really like, and there are things that he writes that are total schlock. Of course, sometimes I like that stuff too...but normally not so much. His piece on entourages, though? Hilarious. :D

But his job is to tell a story, not to investigate or critically analyze.

If you like his story, fine. If you don't, that's fine too. It's just an opinion. As Joe was stomping about earlier, those opinions will be validated or invalidated as the years go on. They're based on feelings, not objective data.

But I'm with Dread - I don't like the way a lot of it's lining up, but I'll be more than happy to be proven wrong. We don't have a track record with McDaniels running a team. We don't know what he can do, where his weaknesses are. He's shown he sucks at handling drama, so we'll see how that shakes out in other aspects, but McDaniels is gonna get to show me his mettle when the Broncos take the field and the going gets tough. This is all being done his way. There's no GM getting in the way and giving him "the wrong guys." It's his guys, his way, his philosophy, his coaches...His vision.

And if it's blurry we'll know, and if it's clear and coherent we'll know. I know which way I'd bet, but a betting line and The Truth are different things.

I'll wait for the truth. I just hope Pat's a better bettor than me. ;)

Otherwise Reilly's off-the-cuff opinion will look more like accurate prediction and less like 12 am ramblings while trying to make a deadline.

~G

MOtorboat
04-30-2009, 10:45 PM
Reilly is not a journalist, he's an editorialist. He's paid to be brash and have an opinion, not to fact-check or have sources.

Rick Reilly is no more educated about the Broncos than anyone on this board. Less so, probably - he likely shopped around here for some fuel before eating donuts and writing his piece.

He has an opinion, but his paid opinion is not more or less valid because he was paid to put it to paper.

There are things that he writes that I really like, and there are things that he writes that are total schlock. Of course, sometimes I like that stuff too...but normally not so much. His piece on entourages, though? Hilarious. :D

But his job is to tell a story, not to investigate or critically analyze.

If you like his story, fine. If you don't, that's fine too. It's just an opinion. As Joe was stomping about earlier, those opinions will be validated or invalidated as the years go on. They're based on feelings, not objective data.

But I'm with Dread - I don't like the way a lot of it's lining up, but I'll be more than happy to be proven wrong. We don't have a track record with McDaniels running a team. We don't know what he can do, where his weaknesses are. He's shown he sucks at handling drama, so we'll see how that shakes out in other aspects, but McDaniels is gonna get to show me his mettle when the Broncos take the field and the going gets tough. This is all being done his way. There's no GM getting in the way and giving him "the wrong guys." It's his guys, his way, his philosophy, his coaches...His vision.

And if it's blurry we'll know, and if it's clear and coherent we'll know. I know which way I'd bet, but a betting line and The Truth are different things.

I'll wait for the truth. I just hope Pat's a better bettor than me. ;)

Otherwise Reilly's off-the-cuff opinion will look more like accurate prediction and less like 12 am ramblings while trying to make a deadline.

~G

Great post. As usual.

Two things. Reilly grew up in Boulder. He is an alumnus of (I believe) Fairview and the University of Colorado. He is also an admitted Denver Broncos fan.

Buff
04-30-2009, 10:49 PM
great post. As usual.

Two things. Reilly grew up in boulder. He is an alumnus of (i believe) fairview and the university of colorado. He is also an admitted denver broncos fan.

bhs

rcsodak
04-30-2009, 10:51 PM
Rick Reilly is my favorite sports writer.

He mirrors what alot of people are thinking.

Like it or not.

I know alot of people want to be optomistic, but there are football realities.

He is setting us backwards, not forwards.

He is a good offensive mind.

Lousy head coach.

When, exactly, have you witnessed him BEING a head coach?

Thought not.

:coffee:

Hawgdriver
04-30-2009, 10:52 PM
Just another scrub white collared reporter who gets paid for writing nonsense.

It's a shame, I used to like Reilly's work.

Broncolingus
04-30-2009, 10:56 PM
...another idiot column by (yet another) idiot sports writer trying to stir the pot and generate shit.

Million to one Reilly doesn't have the slightest clue WTF he's even writing about, but just a great way to get things stirred up.

How the **** does anyone does anyone know - EITHER WAY - when dude hasnt even coached one single game?

Incredible...

MOtorboat
04-30-2009, 10:59 PM
...another idiot column by (yet another) idiot sports writer trying to stir the pot and generate shit.

Million to one Reilly doesn't have the slightest clue WTF he's even writing about, but just a great way to get things stirred up.

How the **** does anyone does anyone know - EITHER WAY - when dude hasnt even coached one single game?

Incredible...

I'm sorry, but I'm just astounded at the lack of understanding as to why columnists serve a purpose. But, hey, seven pages later, maybe you'll get it.

A.) Reilly isn't a journalist. He's a columnist.

B.) His job is to invoke thought. Has he done that? Seven pages of posts on this thread say he has.

C.) Did you read it? Then ESPN did their job.

D.) He grew up in Colorado and is a Broncos fan.

Broncolingus
04-30-2009, 11:00 PM
I'm sorry, but I'm just astounded at the lack of understanding as to why columnists serve a purpose. But, hey, seven pages later, maybe you'll get it.

A.) Reilly isn't a journalist. He's a columnist.

B.) His job is to invoke thought. Has he done that? Seven pages of posts on this thread say he has.

C.) Did you read it? Then ESPN did their job.

D.) He grew up in Colorado and is a Broncos fan.

Wow...thx.

I'll go worship my MB doll now...

Tempus Fugit
04-30-2009, 11:03 PM
I'm sorry, but I'm just astounded at the lack of understanding as to why columnists serve a purpose. But, hey, seven pages later, maybe you'll get it.

A.) Reilly isn't a journalist. He's a columnist.

B.) His job is to invoke thought. Has he done that? Seven pages of posts on this thread say he has.

C.) Did you read it? Then ESPN did their job.

D.) He grew up in Colorado and is a Broncos fan.

He's set people at odds based upon an emotional plea, not a rational one. I doubt his blurb invoked any significant thought by anyone, anywhere. It did, however, serve as raw meat to the 'hungry lions' who can't seem to get past the apparent reality that Cutler wanted out of Denver and engineered a crisis to accomplish his goal.

Hawgdriver
04-30-2009, 11:04 PM
Right. Because we've won SO many games with our brilliant #2 offense.

They didn't score points. Gave the ball up. Put the defense on a short field.

You're right. Our offense was outstanding.

Our offense was outstanding at times. We turned the ball over too much on offense. I maintain it was a #10 or so offense. Great yardage per drive, too many giveaways, not enough points in the paint. But that's not the point.

McDaniels is criticized for blowing up the offense. If our head coach thinks he can do better then he should do what he sees is the right thing to do. That is why he was hired. I don't want a head coach that's OK with #10. He's the boss, and it's on his shoulders. He is stepping up and owning this responsibility. He has a plan and he's executing. We get to see if he's up to the task.

MOtorboat
04-30-2009, 11:09 PM
He's set people at odds based upon an emotional plea, not a rational one. I doubt his blurb invoked any significant thought by anyone, anywhere. It did, however, serve as raw meat to the 'hungry lions' who can't seem to get past the apparent reality that Cutler wanted out of Denver and engineered a crisis to accomplish his goal.

Emotional or rational, he's done his job. I'm guessing, as a fan, his plea was also emotional.

People whine, cry and moan about ESPN not having anyone "Denver"-biased, but no one does their research. Reilly is a Denver guy. A John Elway fan. A guy who felt that Cutler was the next John Elway (I don't agree with him or the analogy, btw).

But the reality is, people think its a good column if they agree, they think it's bad if they disagree. It happens time and time again. I can't count how many times people call a journalist/columnist an idiot for writing a column that they don't agree with, then turn around and praise a guy who writes a column they agree with, and better yet...call a columnist an idiot and then call his column a year later a great column. It's all about whether you agree with it or not, not about what the purpose of it is. This is just a blurb. I didn't click on the link, it may have been a column with multiple, quick-hit points, but this one hit home for this board.

Tempus Fugit
04-30-2009, 11:15 PM
Emotional or rational, he's done his job. I'm guessing, as a fan, his plea was also emotional.

People whine, cry and moan about ESPN not having anyone "Denver"-biased, but no one does their research. Reilly is a Denver guy. A John Elway fan. A guy who felt that Cutler was the next John Elway (I don't agree with him or the analogy, btw).

But the reality is, people think its a good column if they agree, they think it's bad if they disagree. It happens time and time again. I can't count how many times people call a journalist/columnist an idiot for writing a column that they don't agree with, then turn around and praise a guy who writes a column they agree with, and better yet...call a columnist an idiot and then call his column a year later a great column. It's all about whether you agree with it or not, not about what the purpose of it is. This is just a blurb. I didn't click on the link, it may have been a column with multiple, quick-hit points, but this one hit home for this board.

I could write a 3 word blurb for ESPN and get 10 pages out of this board:

"McDaniels is poo."

That's all it would take right now. It's not much of an accomplishment to throw lighter fluid on a raging bonfire and then say "look, the fire got bigger!"

Thnikkaman
04-30-2009, 11:17 PM
The fact of the matter is, this is what a rebuilding season is like. It just seems like we are rebuilding to win.

I am willing to bet that unless we go 2-14 in consecutive years. we will have 3 or 4 under McD.

Buff
04-30-2009, 11:43 PM
I think Reilly is being extremely short-sided on this particular topic...

But the man is a phenomenal writer, and a funny guy. FWIW, he's been national sportswriter of the year like a billion times.

Lonestar
05-01-2009, 01:17 AM
We shall see, my Eastern Brother. I'm not a pessimistic person. I think McDaniels has a plan, and I look forward to seeing it on the field next year.

BTW, does anyone really think Shanahan would have a better record next year?

Unless you are privy to what they are looking for in a player and obviously RR is not.. why is it inconceivable to have 100 players targeted and the others ruled out for one reason or the other.. character issues, motivation, unable to adapt (not versatile), size, weight, will not work in the scheme they have planned and God only knows what other criteria they have used..

It is not like they have mickey the mope as a DC they have some real good coaches that have "the plan" know what they should be looking for and they made their list and checked it twice..

One of the best comment I heard from the guy was there is NO sense in drafting someone that you did not think can do the job, just to cut them later..


Unlike some hope they change guys we have taken before.. the list was extraordinarily long, odorous and dubious..

Nature Boy
05-01-2009, 01:40 AM
Fire McDaniels now and re-rebuild.

.

Joel
05-01-2009, 03:53 AM
My only objection was trading our first rounder when it looks like it might be a good one; I don't like losing early first round picks because I want them to be too rare to relinquish. The fact remains, however:

1) We still have a first round pick, and there's every reason to believe it could be as good or better than our "natural" one,

2) We have a very murky picture of who'll be available and where next Draft Day and

3) Rightly or wrongly, the coaches thought they saw a guy who'd significantly improve the team and wouldn't be there if we waited.

Until we know

1) Where we would've picked,

2) Where Chicago would've picked,

3) What each of those picks does in the Pros and

4) What Smith does in the Pros

we really have no idea, and thus no business, bashing a decision whose effect is impossible to know. We won't know the answer to any of those questions until next January, possibly (dare I hope) next February, and the last two (or three, actually) we can't know for a year or two longer. Let's discuss it then, when we have more than hypotheticals, always shaky college scouting and our guts on which to base it.

And I agree with JR; so what if there were 500 players in the Draft? The Browns picked Courtney Brown Number One Overall in 2000; what's he doing now? What's he ever done? If McDaniels had taken 90% of those 500 players with our pick from Chicago next year he'd still get pilloried in the press, and I'd be surprised if more than a tithe of them EVER start. I wanted a NT and was disappointed we didn't get one; that doesn't mean I wanted us to overlook legit talent like Moreno just so we could throw a 330 lb. warm body out there over center.

Understand, I'm not saying "McDaniels is right and you and Riley are totally out of it." I'm saying we can't know yet whether McDaniels was right in his goals, his philosophy on reaching it or his success with either, so, sure, question the choices if you disagree with them, but don't condemn them out of hand until you have some hard game data with which to do so.

JKcatch724
05-01-2009, 04:35 AM
Fire McDaniels now and re-rebuild.

.

:confused:

Good input.

:lol:

That's what McDoogie was brought here to do.

Nature Boy
05-01-2009, 05:41 AM
:confused:

Good input.

:lol:

That's what McDoogie was brought here to do.


It's called sarcasm... Look it up.

.

Dirk
05-01-2009, 06:07 AM
Wow! It sure gets heated around here at times! :lol:

It goes to show how much the fans of Denver LOVE the Broncos! :salute:

I don't agree with everything McD is doing either, but as I have said before, I am going to be optimistic and let it play out.

There is nothing we can do about it anyway. Sit back and enjoy or curse the ride! :D

BroncosRockdaRockies
05-01-2009, 06:28 AM
from ESPN



First of all this is one persons opinion, although definitely nothing wrong with ones opinion but please gimmme a break?

The first rounder he used to pick up smith was not that far off from being a first rounder so it does not bother me, we let Dre Bly go and got a Rookie who is being regarded as one of the best CB's in the draft so what's the problem?

Sounds like to me the Issue is that he used it to get somebody you either don't like or know. If the guy makes an Impact this season I don't see the problem other than just trying to go out of your way to find something wrong with the new coach.

I say KUDOS to coach McDaniels for sticking to your guns and doing it the way you had planned! I hope this team comes in and just kicks everyones tushi and then we will see all these negative Nancies jumping on board again.

A huge pet peve to me is one who has nothing better to do than complain about the team they "supposedly" support then jump on board when things go right. It does not make you less of a fan to support a team even during it's trials and tribulations.

My Quote for the day: "You cannot become what you want to be, By staying what you are!" (think about it)

Elevation inc
05-01-2009, 06:54 AM
the dude can rip just as much as the fans here, its his right personally there are 2 things that could happen, he looks liek a genius because he was right, or he doesnt becasue he was wrong.....bottom line is good or bad there isnt a single ounce of proof from the field that proves eitehr side is right or wrong other than swayed opinion at this juncture

his right to the arguement is just as valid as the ones thinking we are set. I see and good and bad for the upcoming year and with what went down in the draft, but i saw it with shanny as well, so untill a season goes down in the books where proof is shown that MCd really is inept.....I refuse to specualte to the contrary because at this point for me he is innocent untill proven guilty of being a complete failure.....

but at the same time this doesnt mean rick reily might not be onto something. most these anylasyst are basing off what they think they do know....belichecks desciples fail, dont draft well, dont coach well etc.....those are facts....doesnt hold true for MCd at this point, but the arguement in some respects does have merit and value.

In either case, i just want to sit back watch and evaluate when that time comes and go from there. I cant change what happened or where we are at, I simply want success regardless of who is coaching from the sidelines, throwing the ball or leading the D.

games that are won please fans, games that are lost irritate fans. if MCd wins he is safe, if he loses he has alot to answer for.

BroncosRockdaRockies
05-01-2009, 07:35 AM
the dude can rip just as much as the fans here, its his right personally there are 2 things that could happen, he looks liek a genius because he was right, or he doesnt becasue he was wrong.....bottom line is good or bad there isnt a single ounce of proof from the field that proves eitehr side is right or wrong other than swayed opinion at this juncture

his right to the arguement is just as valid as the ones thinking we are set. I see and good and bad for the upcoming year and with what went down in the draft, but i saw it with shanny as well, so untill a season goes down in the books where proof is shown that MCd really is inept.....I refuse to specualte to the contrary because at this point for me he is innocent untill proven guilty of being a complete failure.....

but at the same time this doesnt mean rick reily might not be onto something. most these anylasyst are basing off what they think they do know....belichecks desciples fail, dont draft well, dont coach well etc.....those are facts....doesnt hold true for MCd at this point, but the arguement in some respects does have merit and value.

In either case, i just want to sit back watch and evaluate when that time comes and go from there. I cant change what happened or where we are at, I simply want success regardless of who is coaching from the sidelines, throwing the ball or leading the D.

games that are won please fans, games that are lost irritate fans. if MCd wins he is safe, if he loses he has alot to answer for.


I never understood this arguement about a coaches protege's not making it? That does not have anything to do with the original coach's teachings, And each Individual is responsible for their own actions.

If Coach McD succeeds then it will be because he is a good coach not b/c Belichek once taught him.

If you are going to say that then if McDaniels succeeds then wouldn't it be better to say that his Dad is a Hall of Fame Coach and deserves to be in Canton since his Dad has taught him more than Belichek has?

Dirk
05-01-2009, 07:51 AM
I never understood this arguement about a coaches protege's not making it? That does not have anything to do with the original coach's teachings, And each Individual is responsible for their own actions.


How true that is.

Let's not forget that a lot of Belichicks assistant and previous Coaching gigs were under Bill Parcels. So let's not say all protege's don't make it. :coffee:

broncofaninfla
05-01-2009, 07:57 AM
I don't mind so much that we traded a #1 for Smith, I think the kid is going to be a starter from day 1. What rubs me wrong is we traded OUR #1 pick for it. Match the massive changes accross the board for us and the schedule we are facing against the new and improved Bears and thier realtivley easy schedule and odds are we traded away the better #1 pick next year.

Nomad
05-01-2009, 08:10 AM
Wow! It sure gets heated around here at times! :lol:

It goes to show how much the fans of Denver LOVE the Broncos! :salute:

I don't agree with everything McD is doing either, but as I have said before, I am going to be optimistic and let it play out.

There is nothing we can do about it anyway. Sit back and enjoy or curse the ride! :D

True! You come here in the morning and everything has already been said at night(plus it seems to really get heated late at night/early morning:drinking:), so I just hand out high fives! What I've noticed is people are passionate about the BRONCOS, but some will hate or be skeptical of McDaniels regardless because either of Shanahan, Cutler, Belichick, or he smacks his lips through interviews too much:whoknows:. I'm like you it all remains unknown and I didn't buy my crystal ball, so sit back and see (disclaimer: by all means people need to speak their minds).

I guess I feel the same way with the guy running this country. Every little thing he does I disagree with because it doesn't fit my agenda/beliefs and not who I wanted and is getting rid of people I liked, so I'll be skeptical and negative until he proves me wrong that his ideas work! This is my opinion and an example to compare to and I'm not turning this political. Mods if you feel it's out of line feel free to edit!!:D

Elevation inc
05-01-2009, 08:12 AM
I never understood this arguement about a coaches protege's not making it? That does not have anything to do with the original coach's teachings, And each Individual is responsible for their own actions.

If Coach McD succeeds then it will be because he is a good coach not b/c Belichek once taught him.

If you are going to say that then if McDaniels succeeds then wouldn't it be better to say that his Dad is a Hall of Fame Coach and deserves to be in Canton since his Dad has taught him more than Belichek has?

history determines many things coaches failing from a certain system is just one more way people use to speculate, i didnt say it was right or wrong, simply put is it fair to attack reily for knocking MCd the HC without proof, when many people say he is god without HC proof as well......

Elevation inc
05-01-2009, 08:13 AM
How true that is.

Let's not forget that a lot of Belichicks assistant and previous Coaching gigs were under Bill Parcels. So let's not say all protege's don't make it. :coffee:

i never implied that, i stated that it could be argued right or wrong....

Fan in Exile
05-01-2009, 08:17 AM
"How arrogant can Josh McDaniels be?"

The Denver Broncos' 33-year-old Boy Blunder boasted this week that his draft board had fewer than 100 names on it, which made it easy for him to make his picks. Less than a hundred names when 256 players were drafted? Most boards had 500-plus names on them! Furthermore, he said the Broncos had worked out nearly 30 players and all 10 of his choices were among those 30. In other words, "I'm not capable of making a mistake. If I didn't work the guy out, the guy wasn't good enough. Period." This is the same genius who traded one of Denver's first-round choices in 2010 to move up in the second round to take a 5'9'' defensive back—Alphonso Smith. To repeat: Boy Blunder used a first to take a second. And if the Broncos are going to be as lame as I think they're going to be—4-12 perhaps—that first-round pick will be very high. McDaniels is the worst combination of things: Terribly naïve and doubly confident. Bronco fans, you're screwed.



There are a bunch of things that I don't like about this piece. Let's start with the name calling. It's both uninspired and unnecessary. Seriously did we really need this throwback to the 1950's batman? It conveys that McDaniels is young and that Reilly thinks he made a lot of mistakes and that Reilly can't think of a good insult.

His critique of McDaniel's drafting method is just plain pathetic. I get that most teams boards have 500 names on them however A) the argument everybody else is doing it is to be avoided even under the best of circumstances, and B) these aren't the best of circumstances because most teams average about 1.4 starters per draft. Clearly it's time to try something new.

Now let's also consider how the other teams view the draft. He did say most and not all. The Pats, Colts and Stealers don't have 500 people they think they might draft. They all go into a draft looking for players to fill specific roles. I don't no how many people they have on their draft board but it's not 500.

Reilly also complains that he worked out all ten of the guys that he drafted. The part about this that bothers me is that it's an attribution of motive that Reilly has no ability to determine. He can't look inside Josh's head he doesn't no why he handled it this way. It could be arrogance or it could be a recognition that nobody can know everybody so it's better to focus on knowing a lot about a few guys than a little bit about a huge number of guys. So it could just as easily come from humility as from arrogance.

On my part I like it that we know the guys that we drafted. Will teams miss some, of course. You only have a limited number of picks so you aren't going to be able to draft every superstar in the draft, but if you can bring in guys to fit your system and win the Superbowl, that's all I care about. For that it's too early for name calling.

Clearly Reilly doesn't like the trade for Smith. To this point I pretty much have to say, "Pot meet Kettle." Reilly isn't a draft analyst he hasn't been breaking down film for this draft, nor does he know what type of defense the Broncos are going to run next year or what Smith's role in that defense is going to be. Neither do I think that Reilly has any inside information on where the 31 other teams were going to take Smith. So he basically seems to hate the trade because Smith is 5'9" and because he thinks the Broncos are going to suck next year. That comes across as true arrogance to me.

Reilly is considered a great sportswriter because of the fluff pieces that he did for the back page of SI. He's not a draft analyst, and he's clearly taken some kind of personal dislike to McDaniels. After this poorly thought out piece I'll probably just go back to ignoring him like I usually have.

Traveler
05-01-2009, 08:29 AM
What I'm about to say is not directed at anyone in particular. That said, I don't understand why folks have such a problem with a new coach coming in and rebuilding the team to fit the schemes he plans to use.

Has McDaniels made some missteps? Yes. Does he seemingly have an ego problem? Maybe. Was his expending next years 1st the Alphonso Smith questionable? Still to be determined.

The one thing that I don't have a problem with is his jettsoning of players that don't fit his new schemes or players that don't want to be here. I read an article on the Mane about JC's reaction when he found out he had been traded. If true, I don't want someone like that on the team no matter how talented he is.

I also think we've become so accustomed to the way Shanahan did things. McDaniels on the other hand, is new and unproven, which has created some resentment and frustration for some of the moves he's made. Hell, I don't necessarily understand some of the things he's done. I'm also not privy to the inner workings of the organization either. There might be a method to his madness. Or just madness. Who knows?

I guess my point is that there are folks who truly believe that our offense was set and that the defense was most in need of attention. That's true to a point. But we also have to remember that we aren't running the WCO anymore.

The players currently on hand were brought in by the Shanahan regime because they fit that scheme. Now, I'm not saying the players currently on hand can't adapt to the new scheme, just that maybe because of physical characteristics (or lackthereof), attitude, or other factors, the new coaches have made the decision to bring in the type of player that fits better into the new scheme. If that means blowing up what we as fans thought wasn't a problem, so be it.

I've been following the Broncos for 30+ years. What's happening now is just a hiccup compared to what's happened in the past.

The folks freaking out because of some of the moves made by McDaniels should show a little patience. While some of the moves made thusfar have caused some to raise a few eyebrows, passing judgement on the new HC and team before a game has even been played is total lunacy IMO.

It may be that the "sky is falling" types might turn out to be correct. That said, who really knows for sure at this point in time?

Everyone on both sides should take a chill pill, wait till the season is complete, then say "I told you so", if necessary.

Dirk
05-01-2009, 08:35 AM
i never implied that, i stated that it could be argued right or wrong....

I understand. I was just pointing that out for "pointing's" sake. :D

LRtagger
05-01-2009, 10:27 AM
Reilly can be a dunce sometimes but I'm afraid he's probably correct here. I don't think McDiapers knows the first thing about putting together a defense. He hasn't shown anything yet to tell me he "gets it". He just wants to play OC and expects the defense to magically heal itself.

He's done more in a few months for our D than Shanny had done in the past 5 years.

Hawgdriver
05-01-2009, 10:29 AM
If McDaniels had taken 90% of those 500 players with our pick from Chicago next year he'd still get pilloried in the press

Now you get all Oxford on us. ;)

Nice post.

BroncoTech
05-01-2009, 01:44 PM
It's good to see other fans opinions on these maters. There's always going to be fans with their orange glasses on and god bless them maybe that's the way it should be. Faithful to the end and smart are 2 different things, however.

We haven't seen Josh coach a game yet, but it's hard to use that as a qualification. Injuries can bench a good player faster than a coach can bench a poor player and these draft picks are just calculated gambles. What I think is that personnel management is at least 50% of a coaches success. Mike Nolan was well thought of by the 49'rs fans when he was head coach. He lost that respect with the way he handled players, more so than his rather dismal record.

The Alphonso Smith deal raised a few eyebrows amongst the NFL insiders, it's mentioned in plenty of articles. So there's probably room for concern. Hope for the best and plan for the worst is probably what's best for fans this year.

Ravage!!!
05-01-2009, 01:46 PM
He's done more in a few months for our D than Shanny had done in the past 5 years.

Isn't that a 'wait and see'... just as much as any other 'wait and see'??

rcsodak
05-01-2009, 06:48 PM
It's called sarcasm... Look it up.

.

After you look up HOW to use sarcasm. :coffee:

rcsodak
05-01-2009, 06:52 PM
I don't mind so much that we traded a #1 for Smith, I think the kid is going to be a starter from day 1. What rubs me wrong is we traded OUR #1 pick for it. Match the massive changes accross the board for us and the schedule we are facing against the new and improved Bears and thier realtivley easy schedule and odds are we traded away the better #1 pick next year.

Wrong or not, that's the ONLY pick Seattle would take. Period. End of story.

And what gets me, of the people crying about using next year's 1st rounder....


....they graded Smith AS a 1st rounder, so out of 4 1st's, after next years, it'll STILL be 4 1st's.


Just because there are only 32 picks in the 1st round, doesn't necessarily mean there are only 32 1st round-graded players.

:rolleyes:

OrangeHoof
05-01-2009, 07:07 PM
Just because there are 32 picks in the 1st round, doesn't necessarily mean there are 32 players worthy of a 1st-round grade either. I think the Browns can testify to that.

Tned
05-01-2009, 07:11 PM
What I'm about to say is not directed at anyone in particular. That said, I don't understand why folks have such a problem with a new coach coming in and rebuilding the team to fit the schemes he plans to use.

Has McDaniels made some missteps? Yes. Does he seemingly have an ego problem? Maybe. Was his expending next years 1st the Alphonso Smith questionable? Still to be determined.


I think McDaniels seems to have a big ego, but I don't think that is necessarily bad in a coach. It can be dangerous in certain situations, such as IMO what happened with Jay, but by and large, I want a coach that has a ton of confidence in what he does and doesn't second guess himself at every move.

Tned
05-01-2009, 07:13 PM
Wrong or not, that's the ONLY pick Seattle would take. Period. End of story.

And what gets me, of the people crying about using next year's 1st rounder....


....they graded Smith AS a 1st rounder, so out of 4 1st's, after next years, it'll STILL be 4 1st's.


Just because there are only 32 picks in the 1st round, doesn't necessarily mean there are only 32 1st round-graded players.

:rolleyes:

Just because McDaniels tiny, less than 100 player board, had him rated as a first rounder, doesn't mean that he really is a first round talent. Only time will tell.

Beyond that, as mentioned above, not all first rounders are the same. Unless the Broncos win a lot more games than most expect this year, they will have a high draft pick that they gave up for Smith. Few, if ANYONE, would argue that Smith is a top 10 first round player.

topscribe
05-01-2009, 07:16 PM
Just because McDaniels tiny, less than 100 player board, had him rated as a first rounder, doesn't mean that he really is a first round talent. Only time will tell.

Beyond that, as mentioned above, not all first rounders are the same. Unless the Broncos win a lot more games than most expect this year, they will have a high draft pick that they gave up for Smith. Few, if ANYONE, would argue that Smith is a top 10 first round player.

Do you think that trade could be a sign that McDaniels didn't expect to be drafting in the Top 10 next year?

-----

Ravage!!!
05-01-2009, 08:04 PM
Do you think that trade could be a sign that McDaniels didn't expect to be drafting in the Top 10 next year?

-----

absolutely.... but that (to me) shows just how brash he is. Even the most confident of coaches MUST be realistic. Perhaps he just doesn't know better, and has spent all of his professional career with the Patriots... thus, not really knowing what its like to go through a rough period. Much like Belicheck had to deal with when in Cleveland.

So I do think that the young coach probably thinks this 'winning' thing is pretty easy. But truthfully, top, as much as I like confidence in success... that would only again prove his inexperience

MOtorboat
05-01-2009, 08:07 PM
absolutely.... but that (to me) shows just how brash he is. Even the most confident of coaches MUST be realistic. Perhaps he just doesn't know better, and has spent all of his professional career with the Patriots... thus, not really knowing what its like to go through a rough period. Much like Belicheck had to deal with when in Cleveland.

So I do think that the young coach probably thinks this 'winning' thing is pretty easy. But truthfully, top, as much as I like confidence in success... that would only again prove his inexperience

What if reality is that Cutler is no better than an 9-7 quarterback?

OrangeHoof
05-01-2009, 08:23 PM
I think McDaniels seems to have a big ego, but I don't think that is necessarily bad in a coach. It can be dangerous in certain situations, such as IMO what happened with Jay, but by and large, I want a coach that has a ton of confidence in what he does and doesn't second guess himself at every move.

Shanny had a big ego too. The difference is that Shanny had two Super Bowl rings on his hand as the Head Coach to back up his arrogance. McDaniels came in acting like HE was the reason the Patriots had a dynasty.

I want to see a head coach with some cockiness and confidence but only after he's actually accomplished something. THAT'S the main issue I have with McDaniels. He acts like HE won all those Super Bowls and not the head coach or the players, but the lowly assistant.

topscribe
05-01-2009, 09:23 PM
absolutely.... but that (to me) shows just how brash he is. Even the most confident of coaches MUST be realistic. Perhaps he just doesn't know better, and has spent all of his professional career with the Patriots... thus, not really knowing what its like to go through a rough period. Much like Belicheck had to deal with when in Cleveland.

So I do think that the young coach probably thinks this 'winning' thing is pretty easy. But truthfully, top, as much as I like confidence in success... that would only again prove his inexperience

McDaniels didn't just walk off the street and apply for a coaching job with the
Broncos, Rav. He has been several years in coaching, as you know. His father
was a coach. I don't believe he's self-delusional on how hard it is to win.

Maybe he just feels he knows what he is doing, and maybe in fact he does
know what he's doing. Maybe he sees things in the team you and I don't
because he's there and we're not.

Personally, I see improvements all over the place: a better running game than
they've had in years, solid linebacking, a top notch defensive backfield, and,
yes, a better defensive line (how could it have gotten worse?).

The only thing the Broncos don't have this year is Cutler: his arm, his legs.
Perhaps, however, they also don't have his turnovers, and they will have a
better red zone offense. After all, I can think of a few other QBs who don't
have Cutler's arm and legs, beginning with Brady and Peyton Manning. Yes, I
know . . . don't mention Orton in the same breath with those guys. Only thing
is, they were "Ortons" in their own right before they became who they are now.

But, with the offensive weaponry the Broncos have, just a competent QB will
do some damage. So, with that offense, and if they can vault themselves into
the middle of the pack defensively, they might surprise some folks.

Maybe this is what McDaniels sees . . .

-----

omac
05-01-2009, 09:47 PM
McDaniels didn't just walk off the street and apply for a coaching job with the
Broncos, Rav. He has been several years in coaching, as you know. His father
was a coach. I don't believe he's self-delusional on how hard it is to win.

Maybe he just feels he knows what he is doing, and maybe in fact he does
know what he's doing. Maybe he sees things in the team you and I don't
because he's there and we're not.

Personally, I see improvements all over the place: a better running game than
they've had in years, solid linebacking, a top notch defensive backfield, and,
yes, a better defensive line (how could it have gotten worse?).

The only thing the Broncos don't have this year is Cutler: his arm, his legs.
Perhaps, however, they also don't have his turnovers, and they will have a
better red zone offense. After all, I can think of a few other QBs who don't
have Cutler's arm and legs, beginning with Brady and Peyton Manning. Yes, I
know . . . don't mention Orton in the same breath with those guys. Only thing
is, they were Ortons in their own right before they became who they are now.

But, with the offensive weaponry the Broncos have, just a competent QB will
do some damage. So, with that offense, and if they can vault themselves into
the middle of the pack defensively, they might surprise some folks.

Maybe this is what McDaniels sees . . .

-----

According to a Bears fan who has access to football outsiders info (that I can't find myself; maybe it's not in the free section?), FO rated the QBs based on drive efficiency ... converting 3rd downs to keep drives alive. Cutler had the best, despite having the worst starting field position, while Orton was ranked 27th, despite having the best starting field position. There are other factors that contribute to this, of course, like Orton not having much targets, just like there are other factors contributing to Cutler having more turnovers, like not having a solid rushing threat nor a defense he can rely on.

Bringing Moreno in should definitely help out Orton, so that he doesn't have to force things, just like in Chicago when he had Forte, plus he now has a better OL and WRs. :cheers:

Joel
05-02-2009, 11:09 AM
Now you get all Oxford on us. ;)

Nice post.
Thanks. I couldn't resist the alliteration. :redface:

While I'm here though, someone else mentioned something I meant to but forgot:

Working out all the guys he drafted isn't necessarily a bad thing. The draft's a crap shoot to begin, and most seem to feel this was a pretty mediocre class; doesn't it make sense to pick the few guys who seem worthwhile, go over them with a fine toothed comb, and then draft from the available choices in that pool? It doesn't necessarily denote overconfidence in ones personal scouting; it could be as simple as "I want guys who do <i>x</i>, let's work out these best looking candidates, and come Draft Day will pick the ones who perform best as they're available." Is that confidence, or consciousness...?

I'd be more nervous if he worked out a bunch of guys then picked different ones even though they were available, because THAT would indicate he's making it up as he goes along, switching horses in midstream, or some other element that implies the Broncos spinning their wheels until we admit we hired the wrong coach. I've seen people half-seriously suggest the best thing to do with picks in this draft is trade them for picks in future drafts, so it's not THAT shocking that a coach would focus on a relatively small number of seemingly legitimate talents and ignore the rest of what will, let's face it, most likely be on the waiver wire in a few weeks anyway. If he has any inclination to acquire them he'll get his chance then, and still have the guys he picked.

absolutely.... but that (to me) shows just how brash he is. Even the most confident of coaches MUST be realistic. Perhaps he just doesn't know better, and has spent all of his professional career with the Patriots... thus, not really knowing what its like to go through a rough period. Much like Belicheck had to deal with when in Cleveland.

So I do think that the young coach probably thinks this 'winning' thing is pretty easy. But truthfully, top, as much as I like confidence in success... that would only again prove his inexperience
If that's what this was (and I personally doubt it, just my gut though) I think it's less about misplaced confidence than the pragmatism of professional sports. Fans tend not to like it when the new coach of an 8-8 team heavily implies he expect to take them to a pride inducing 2-14 season. By "tend not to like it" I mean they stop buying tickets and merchandise and start screaming at anyone from the owner to the media and everyone in between. There's a very short list of coaches who began their career with a new team by saying, "Folks, we're gonna suck really bad the next couple years. I mean REALLY stink up the League; they'll have us playing college teams by Thanksgiving." They have to win NOW, and even if that's not possible and they know it, they need a demeanor that SAYS they're going to win now, or most of us start getting antsy. The sad thing is a lot of coaches get pressured into doing that dance and wind up in the same place three years later when if they'd just bitten the bullet and taken their lumps at the start they might have had the opportunity to acquire the top talent they need to be a championship team.

atwater27
05-02-2009, 11:34 AM
What if reality is that Cutler is no better than an 9-7 quarterback?

What if purple turkeys ruled the earth?

Hawgdriver
05-02-2009, 12:18 PM
doesn't it make sense to pick the few guys who seem worthwhile, go over them with a fine toothed comb

I agree. I don't know how much was a result of an abbreviated scouting period or lack of proper depth in the new staff at talent evaluation--I imagine that was a factor--BUT, given his constraints, it's the best approach.

For the sake of argument, let's say you have two options. The first is fine-tooth combing. The second is broad-brush evaluation. For the sake of argument, let's say that fine-tooth combing improves your ability to spot if a prospect will be a useful player. Putting a number to it, let's say fine-tooth combing yields a 40% success rate per prospect, and broad-brushing a 30% success rate. The advantage of having 200 players vs. 100 players on your board is that you will 'reach' less often, and more 'steals' will fall to your lap. If you have 100 players on your board you have about 14 players per round, or one prospect every 2.5 draft slots. So to 'reach' 16 spots--miss a round--other teams have to take ALL of the prospects above your draft spot, and the 7 prospects projected after your draft spot. The probability of BOTH of those two events happening is very low. If you think that each team is equally good at identifying talent properly, the odds of that happening are less than 1% (it's 31!/(14! * 17!) * (1/31)^7 * (1 - 1/31)^17 = .0055, or 0.6%. From that perspective, there isn't a huge risk factor in having a 100 prospect board.

So only having 100 instead of 200 doesn't hurt your overall success rate much in terms of not finding 'your guy' where you expect him. Where it does hurt is the situation when a great player on your 200 prospect board falls to you, but he's not on the 100 prospect board, so you don't get 'a steal'. You need to understand the likelihood of getting a steal if you have a bigger board (let's call a steal a +10 selection--should have been picked at 22 but he's still there at 32). Then you consider that other teams are operating with a 30% success factor, but you have a 40% success factor. Let's say we have a #20 talent on the board, and #20 is on the clock. If #20 has a 30%/200prospect approach, the odds he will select #20 talent are 200/256 * 0.3 = 23%. We expect #20 to fall 4.3 spots in this situation. On the other hand, with a 40%/100 paradigm, we expect the player to fall 100/256 * 0.4 = 6.4 spots.

So we give up an average of 2.1 spots by not benefiting from letting 'steals' fall into our lap. That doesn't mean we are unsuccessful. To do this, we need to compare the successes we lost out on (more talented players we could have stolen) vs. the successes we made (less talented players that have a higher chance of panning out, the 40% vs. 30% issue).

Giving up 2.1 spots throughout the draft amounts to giving up 140 draft value points, or a late third round pick. Now we can add up all the trade-offs and tell which is more effective.

Using the #10 position in the draft, the total value of picks is 2,157. A thin board results in average on a 2.5 diameter net vs. a 1.2 diameter net for a 200 sized board. The likely loss between the two is 35 draft points (because the error for the 100 board is 1.25 on either side of the pick for the 100 board, but 0.6 for the 200 board, a net loss of .6 draft spots per round). A 40% approach vs. a 30% approach results in a 216 point improvement (10% more likely to succeed). The loss from missing 'steals' is a 140 point loss. So, a 40% approach yields about 40 draft value points more than a 30% approach.

The point is that it's more important to identify success than it is to make sure you don't miss a steal. You give up something by thinning your board, but if you can actually find players that work, it's worth it. We'll have to wait and see if they actually found players that work, but the approach is reasonable.

Lonestar
05-02-2009, 02:10 PM
someone mentioned #1 picks..

I wonder how many extra years many of ours were kept hoping they would turn into the player they were thought to be.. For that matter all of our day one picks that we had EGO invested into..

rcsodak
05-02-2009, 10:11 PM
Just because McDaniels tiny, less than 100 player board, had him rated as a first rounder, doesn't mean that he really is a first round talent. Only time will tell.

Beyond that, as mentioned above, not all first rounders are the same. Unless the Broncos win a lot more games than most expect this year, they will have a high draft pick that they gave up for Smith. Few, if ANYONE, would argue that Smith is a top 10 first round player.

And that's my point, tned. Other than the HC/FO/Owner....who cares where a player is "rated"?

A 1st is a 1st is a 1st.

One team's 1st is another team's 2nd. Who gives a crap. If it weren't for the likes of ESPN and the football analysts, NOBODY would give two craps of where a player is drafted.

Bragging points is all it is.

Tned
05-02-2009, 11:21 PM
And that's my point, tned. Other than the HC/FO/Owner....who cares where a player is "rated"?

A 1st is a 1st is a 1st.

One team's 1st is another team's 2nd. Who gives a crap. If it weren't for the likes of ESPN and the football analysts, NOBODY would give two craps of where a player is drafted.

Bragging points is all it is.

It does matter. Not all firsts are the same. Are you going to tell me there is NO difference between picking Stafford number 1 and Freeman whoever that third QB was? How about the 32 pick? No difference? Tell that to the teams paying a heck of a lot more money to the number 1 pick than the 32 second pick.

Obviously, there is a difference.

Since McDaniels subscribes to the BPA philosophy, if the Broncos are picking between 5 and 10 next year, in order for you argument to hold water, he would have to be a top 10 first rounder, in order to justify picking him.

As I said, it might work out, but you simply cant' make a viable case that all first rounders are equal, that a first rounder is a first rounder. NOBODY believes that.

Ravage!!!
05-02-2009, 11:26 PM
I NOBODY believes that.

absolutely noboby.... :salute:

Lonestar
05-02-2009, 11:29 PM
It does matter. Not all firsts are the same. Are you going to tell me there is NO difference between picking Stafford number 1 and Freeman whoever that third QB was? How about the 32 pick? No difference? Tell that to the teams paying a heck of a lot more money to the number 1 pick than the 32 second pick.

Obviously, there is a difference.

Since McDaniels subscribes to the BPA philosophy, if the Broncos are picking between 5 and 10 next year, in order for you argument to hold water, he would have to be a top 10 first rounder, in order to justify picking him.

As I said, it might work out, but you simply cant' make a viable case that all first rounders are equal, that a first rounder is a first rounder. NOBODY believes that.

Actually no it does not have to be a top ten pick on Mayock or whoever Else's scale you may be using it has to be OUR number one choice..

What Josh sees in a player is not what mike might have.. they have different priorities.. Our priority scale just changed from what we have been used to..

Ravage!!!
05-02-2009, 11:32 PM
Actually no it does not have to be a top ten pick on Mayock or whoever Else's scale you may be using it has to be OUR number one choice..

What Josh sees in a player is not what mike might have.. they have different priorities.. Our priority scale just changed from what we have been used to..

Ok... so it still holds true.

If we are in the top ten picks next year (likely).... then the player would STILL have to be in a top 10 priority to OUR Team.. period. Why didn't we pick Smith with one of our first two picks this year if he's a 1st round talent?? Because he wasn't worth a top twelve salary or rated as a top 12 player. So instead of "reaching " for a CB, we went with "BPA".. which wasn't a corner...

Hawgdriver
05-02-2009, 11:41 PM
if the Broncos are picking between 5 and 10 next year

My favorite thing about our new coach is that he's betting the farm on his success. He's not considering the notion of a losing season. It's what got under RR's skin but I'm on board. While some may secretly want to see him humbled, I want to see him succeed and stick it in everyone's face. I don't mind jumping in to the cause and going down swinging. He's not aiming for better than picking 5 and 10, he's aiming to be the best. Any naysayer or realist or critic can pound sand. That's his view, and I think it's the right one. We get to see, and I'm excited.

Lonestar
05-02-2009, 11:51 PM
Ok... so it still holds true.

If we are in the top ten picks next year (likely).... then the player would STILL have to be in a top 10 priority to OUR Team.. period. Why didn't we pick Smith with one of our first two picks this year if he's a 1st round talent?? Because he wasn't worth a top twelve salary or rated as a top 12 player. So instead of "reaching " for a CB, we went with "BPA".. which wasn't a corner...

I would guess since I was not in the war room. that RB, DE was a higher priority for us than was a CB.. even though they were all on Mayock list as best at their positions..

frankly I do not understand what you getting so worked up for.. If CB would have been our #1 priority perhaps he would have used the #12 pick on smith.. I do not know and neither do you.. He might have tried harder to trade back..

I do not follow college ball like I used to so other than what I see at the combine I do not know or pretty much care who is a stud where..

If it where me this year I'd have taken nothing but front seven guys.. whetehr they would have worked in our scheme or not.. But forutnately Josh and Nolan know more about scheme's, talent and coaching than I do, so I'm happy they picked who they did..

they now have the job to make them as good as they can be..

Lets hope for the teams sake they can..

Lonestar
05-03-2009, 12:01 AM
My favorite thing about our new coach is that he's betting the farm on his success. He's not considering the notion of a losing season. It's what got under RR's skin but I'm on board. While some may secretly want to see him humbled, I want to see him succeed and stick it in everyone's face. I don't mind jumping in to the cause and going down swinging. He's not aiming for better than picking 5 and 10, he's aiming to be the best. Any naysayer or realist or critic can pound sand. That's his view, and I think it's the right one. We get to see, and I'm excited.

I like what I have seen of Josh..

He knows what he wants.. and is not afraid to go for the brass ring..

I think if all the planets and moons and stars line up just right he will go to the playoffs.

I do not see it and frankly will be happy if we do not get blown out like we did last year.. If we are competitive in every game win or lose I'll take it..

considering how much change is going on this off season 4-12 will make me happy..


New coaches almost top to bottom..
almost complete turn over of Defensive players.. 2 starters from opening day left.. 3 if you count boss..
complete new schemes on both side of the LOS and a new ST scheme also..
27-28 new rookie players on the squad as we speak..
a good mixture of wily old vets to help the newbies learn pride in playing..
A brutal east coast away schedule mostly against playoff teams..

LordTrychon
05-03-2009, 12:03 AM
4-12 is its own version of consistent, I guess... ;)

Lonestar
05-03-2009, 12:14 AM
4-12 is its own version of consistent, I guess... ;)

if we play good and are making less mistakes each week. getting beat by better teams is not to hard to deal with..

remember how bad the talent level on everything but offense was the past few years..

remember the coaching and scheme Meister's from the past few years..

Hell if all the team shows up on game day in the correct uniform. ;) I'll take that as progress.:laugh:

LordTrychon
05-03-2009, 12:29 AM
if we play good and are making less mistakes each week. getting beat by better teams is not to hard to deal with..

remember how bad the talent level on everything but offense was the past few years..

remember the coaching and scheme Meister's from the past few years..

Hell if all the team shows up on game day in the correct uniform. ;) I'll take that as progress.:laugh:

If we go 4-12 next year...

8-8 will be progress again.

:laugh:

rcsodak
05-03-2009, 09:39 AM
It does matter. Not all firsts are the same. Are you going to tell me there is NO difference between picking Stafford number 1 and Freeman whoever that third QB was? How about the 32 pick? No difference? Tell that to the teams paying a heck of a lot more money to the number 1 pick than the 32 second pick.

Obviously, there is a difference.

Since McDaniels subscribes to the BPA philosophy, if the Broncos are picking between 5 and 10 next year, in order for you argument to hold water, he would have to be a top 10 first rounder, in order to justify picking him.

As I said, it might work out, but you simply cant' make a viable case that all first rounders are equal, that a first rounder is a first rounder. NOBODY believes that.

Well, tned, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then.

Because I can't believe you're going to subscribe to the idea that Stafford, not having played an NFL down, is BETTER than Tom Brady.

That Moreno is BETTER than TD.

That Ayers is BETTER than Mecklenberg.

There have just been way too many, as other posters proclaim, "exceptions to the rule", for there not to be a claim that draft positions mean squat.

Scouts/coaches have less than a year, months in some cases, to determine a player's playing IQ, his drive, his morals, and his future play.

Until they come up with some blood test that tells them everything they need to know, I'll stick with my POV. ;)

Ravage!!!
05-03-2009, 10:42 AM
Well, tned, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then.

Because I can't believe you're going to subscribe to the idea that Stafford, not having played an NFL down, is BETTER than Tom Brady.

That Moreno is BETTER than TD.

That Ayers is BETTER than Mecklenberg.

There have just been way too many, as other posters proclaim, "exceptions to the rule", for there not to be a claim that draft positions mean squat.

Scouts/coaches have less than a year, months in some cases, to determine a player's playing IQ, his drive, his morals, and his future play.

Until they come up with some blood test that tells them everything they need to know, I'll stick with my POV. ;)


where did you get that Tned said ANYTHING like you are suggesting with what you quoted from him???? :confused:

Ravage!!!
05-03-2009, 10:44 AM
if we play good and are making less mistakes each week. getting beat by better teams is not to hard to deal with..

remember how bad the talent level on everything but offense was the past few years..

remember the coaching and scheme Meister's from the past few years..

Hell if all the team shows up on game day in the correct uniform. ;) I'll take that as progress.:laugh:

I'm confused though. If our offense was good, and we were able to win 7 and 8 the last two years with our 'awful' coaches picking terrible defensive players and starting a 'baby' of a QB.... how is it the new regime should come in and 'improve' the team by simply going 4 wins while bringing ALLLL these players that fit his system????? :confused:

T.K.O.
05-03-2009, 01:17 PM
Regular Season Games

1 Sun, Sept. 13 at Cincinnati Bengals CBS .................W
2 Sun, Sept. 20 vs. Cleveland Browns CBS .................W
3 Sun, Sept. 27 at Oakland Raiders CBS ....................W
4 Sun, Oct. 4 vs. Dallas Cowboys FOX ...................W.
5 Sun, Oct. 11 vs. New England Patriots ..................L
6 Mon, Oct. 19 at San Diego Chargers ......................L
7 Bye
8 Sun, Nov. 1 at Baltimore Ravens .........................W
9 Mon, Nov. 9 vs. Pittsburgh Steelers ESPN ..............L
10 Sun, Nov. 15 at Washington Redskins CBS ..............W
11 Sun, Nov. 22 vs. San Diego Chargers CBS ...............W
12 Thu, Nov. 26 vs. New York Giants NFLN ..................L
13 Sun, Dec. 6 at Kansas City Chiefs CBS ..................L
14 Sun, Dec. 13 at Indianapolis Colts ..........................L
15 Sun, Dec. 20 vs. Oakland Raiders ...........................W
16 Sun, Dec. 27 at Philadelphia Eagles .........................W
17 Sun, Jan. 3 vs. Kansas City Chiefs .........................W

after a surprising 3 game win streak to finish the regular season and winning their 1st division title since 2005. knowshon moreno and the upstart denver broncos take the leagues best rushing offense to indianapolis to face peyton manning and the afc's best passing offense in what should be a shootout between superbowl hopefulls.

thats what would make me happy !

Lonestar
05-03-2009, 06:41 PM
I'm confused though. If our offense was good, and we were able to win 7 and 8 the last two years with our 'awful' coaches picking terrible defensive players and starting a 'baby' of a QB.... how is it the new regime should come in and 'improve' the team by simply going 4 wins while bringing ALLLL these players that fit his system????? :confused:


I guess you did not notice the:


schedule
we completely switched HC.
we completely change the coaching staff except for Turner and dennison
we changed the Offensive scheme from vertical to spread..
we changed the defense from who the hell knows to 3-4
we changed the complete set of defensive coaches..
we changed the ST group..
we drafted 10 players most of whom will stick..
we brought in 18 UDFA and some of them will stick..
we brought in 12-13 FA's that will have top learn the schemes and terminology..
got rid of a QB which would have had to learn a completely new system for one that will have to do the same..
may have a pro bowl WR on the deck for 2-8 games next year..
we have to play on the east coast 4-7 times next year none of which will be easy feats (KC, Ind ) included in that number.
we have NE, PIT in DEN both playoff caliber teams.

FORGOT cut most of the starting D players all but 2 that started the season in 2008


While I see us getting better play out of our team, via coaching and upgrade in players, this is IMHO a brutal schedule for them to play..

I shudder to think of how bad it could be if mike had of still been here..

Ravage!!!
05-03-2009, 06:48 PM
I guess you did not notice the:


schedule
we completely switched HC.
we completely change the coaching staff except for Turner and dennison
we changed the Offensive scheme from vertical to spread..
we changed the defense from who the hell knows to 3-4
we changed the complete set of defensive coaches..
we changed the ST group..
we drafted 10 players most of whom will stick..
we brought in 18 UDFA and some of them will stick..
we brought in 12-13 FA's that will have top learn the schemes and terminology..
got rid of a QB which would have had to learn a completely new system for one that will have to do the same..
may have a pro bowl WR on the deck for 2-8 games next year..
we have to play on the east coast 4-7 times next year none of which will be easy feats (KC, Ind ) included in that number.
we have NE, PIT in DEN both playoff caliber teams.


While I see us getting better play out of our team, via coaching and upgrade in players, this is IMHO a brutal schedule for them to play..

I shudder to think of how bad it could be if mike had of still been here..

Sounds, to me, like someone is already making excuses for the new regime and putting in place the 'defensive front' now, especially since we'll never be able to actually 'see' what the record would have been with Mike.

NameUsedBefore
05-03-2009, 06:50 PM
This would actually be a great schedule for Shanahan. The Broncos never had trouble with the great teams, it was always the crappy teams that snuck one past us.

Cugel
05-03-2009, 07:35 PM
We shall see, my Eastern Brother. I'm not a pessimistic person. I think McDaniels has a plan, and I look forward to seeing it on the field next year.

BTW, does anyone really think Shanahan would have a better record next year?

Yes. :coffee:

I was NOT one of those to mourn Shanahan's firing, but he wouldn't have run his pro-bowl QB out of town, so yes! He would have done better.

Of course, getting Mike Nolan instead of Bob Slowik to coach the defense might help. We'll just have to wait and see if that translates into any more wins.

But, overall my opinion is that Shanahan would have won more games in 2009. No question. :coffee:

Cugel
05-03-2009, 07:39 PM
I guess you did not notice the:


schedule
we completely switched HC.
we completely change the coaching staff except for Turner and dennison
we changed the Offensive scheme from vertical to spread..
we changed the defense from who the hell knows to 3-4
we changed the complete set of defensive coaches..
we changed the ST group..
we drafted 10 players most of whom will stick..
we brought in 18 UDFA and some of them will stick..
we brought in 12-13 FA's that will have top learn the schemes and terminology..
got rid of a QB which would have had to learn a completely new system for one that will have to do the same..
may have a pro bowl WR on the deck for 2-8 games next year..
we have to play on the east coast 4-7 times next year none of which will be easy feats (KC, Ind ) included in that number.
we have NE, PIT in DEN both playoff caliber teams.


While I see us getting better play out of our team, via coaching and upgrade in players, this is IMHO a brutal schedule for them to play..

I shudder to think of how bad it could be if mike had of still been here..

But Mike WOULDN'T have made most of those moves! He certainly wouldn't have changed to a 3-4 defense -- and then failed to draft a NT or trade for one!

He very probably wouldn't have spent his top pick on a RB if a DE or LB were available -- because in 15 years he never DID spend his top draft pick on a RB. But, we'll never know that for sure. :coffee:

We pretty much know what he would have done. Kept Bob Slowik as DC and drafted a bunch of defensive players. He would have also tried to trade for at least 1 or 2 impact FAs, but if history is any guide they would NOT have been Julius Peppers or Albert Haynesworth. They would have been guys nobody ever heard of.

And he might have kept some of these useless chodes: John Engleberger and Ebeneezer Ekuban and Nikko Koutivides and Marquand Manuel, and Marlon McCree. That would have been bad.

But, Shanahan would surely have made some major personnel changes on defense. He is a potential Hall of Fame coach, and he's not stupid. He can see the statistics just like anybody else. Last in everything.

It might have been a better idea to keep Shanahan and his horrible drafting mistakes, than to jump to McDaniels and his worse blunders. We'll never know for sure. :coffee:

MOtorboat
05-03-2009, 07:51 PM
But, Shanahan would surely have made some major personnel changes on defense.

Based on what do you say this?

MOtorboat
05-03-2009, 07:52 PM
than to jump to McDaniels and his worse blunders.

How many games has he coached?

:coffee: