PDA

View Full Version : Krieger: Broncos' respect taking big hit



Lonestar
05-21-2009, 01:33 PM
By Dave Krieger
The Denver Post
Posted: 05/20/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT


The Nuggets' postseason run is providing a welcome distraction from our soap opera of a state religion, which has fallen off the map while we've been watching basketball.

Sure, the Jay Cutler fiasco had the Broncos front and center there for a minute, but it was sort of an Ozzy Osbourne front and center, not necessarily what the public relations department had in mind.

Since then, as talk has turned to the coming season, the Broncos have gotten a lot less sexy. NFL.com, the league's official Internet site, ranks them 27th in its first 2009 power rankings. CBSSports.com has them 25th.

On the bright side, both rank the Raiders and Chiefs even lower, meaning the Broncos could wind up in second place in the AFC West, even if they're as bad as these folks expect them to be.

In short, in his first year as Broncos coach, Josh McDaniels has set himself up to be a miracle worker. All he has to do is work the miracle.

The national downgrades of the Broncos are based on three obvious reasons:

• The loss of Mike Shanahan, a coach who has won about 60 percent of his games (.599) over the course of his career.

• The replacement of Cutler, a quarterback Shanahan considered a franchise player, with Kyle Orton, your basic mortal.

• A defense under reconstruction after ranking even lower in last season's statistical ratings than the Broncos do now in the power rankings.

There is nothing anybody can do about the first two, aside from possibly Chris Simms, but the latter remains a riddle wrapped in several acres of Reebok gear. McDaniels paid most of his attention, in both free agency and the draft, to the secondary. He said he's a value shopper and this is where the value was this offseason.

He is hoping to build a four- man linebacking corps from a long list of prospects and holdovers, some of whom were defensive linemen just last year.

Who will play on the three- man line is still a mystery. During the most recent minicamp practice open to the wretches, the D-linemen did their drills as far from the media as they could without getting lost in the trees. It took a pair of binoculars to watch J'Vonne Parker and Ryan McBean rassle.

In this case, that is not a figure of speech. Defensive coordinator Mike Nolan had to pull them aside. I'm not sure what he said, but it looked something like, "Fellas. It's May. Come on."

When you remove all the D-linemen working with the linebackers — including first-round draft pick Robert Ayers, Jarvis Moss and Tim Crowder — you end up with a bunch of no-names on the interior line.

Which might work out. It does sometimes. But it also makes this ground zero for working on that miracle. The loyal parishioner cites draft pedigrees for the candidates who have them, but for players who have been out of school as long as some of these guys, that's beside the point.

Matthias Askew was a fourth-round pick, but that was five years ago. He has appeared in six NFL games since then. Ronald Fields was a fifth-round pick, four years ago, who has been a serviceable backup. Carlton Powell was a fifth-round pick a year ago who missed his entire rookie year after tearing an Achilles tendon.

McBean was a fourth-round pick two years ago who appeared in one game and has been a practice squad guy since. In only four seasons, Parker has signed contracts with Cleveland, Dallas, Cleveland again, Baltimore, Atlanta, Carolina and now, Denver.

In fact, the most established players in the group — Marcus Thomas and Kenny Peterson — are holdovers from the Broncos' 30th-ranked scoring defense last year. And, of course, there are undrafted free agents galore.

Although McDaniels is counting heavily on the New England system to propel the Broncos to success, he doesn't get much credit for the system from national analysts because it hasn't traveled that well for Eric Mangini, Romeo Crennel and Charlie Weis, three earlier acorns from the Bill Belichick coaching tree.

Lose a winning coach and franchise quarterback, turn your defensive line into open auditions, and presto, you suddenly are keeping company with the Rams, Niners and Browns, of all people.

The Broncos haven't been held in such low national repute for a generation. Even the obsessed are happy to be distracted by a little basketball.

Well, some of them.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_12407467

silkamilkamonico
05-21-2009, 01:36 PM
Uhm, Denver's just coming off 3 underachieving consecutive seasons where we didn't even make the playoffs. We've won 1 playoff game in 10 years. We've won 1 division title in 10 years. And somehow, we're just now losing respect? I'd say that was taken away probably anywhere from 3-6 years ago.

OrangeHoof
05-21-2009, 10:21 PM
I'm not sure Bronco fans recognize what a 4-12 or 5-11 season looks like. They're spoiled. They think 8-8 is just embarassing. Well, get ready for a 4-12 season, folks. Maybe they have to get worse before they get better, but they are definitely going to be worse.

If you didn't actually read what Krieger is saying, it's that the front seven is filled with wash outs and folks playing out of position. It's going to be a lean year.

broncohead
05-21-2009, 10:24 PM
I'm not sure Bronco fans recognize what a 4-12 or 5-11 season looks like. They're spoiled. They think 8-8 is just embarassing. Well, get ready for a 4-12 season, folks. Maybe they have to get worse before they get better, but they are definitely going to be worse.

If you didn't actually read what Krieger is saying, it's that the front seven is filled with wash outs and folks playing out of position. It's going to be a lean year.

But we sure did try and upgrade our weak spots on the team...

gobroncsnv
05-21-2009, 11:04 PM
So is his point that there is a possibility of having a worse d than last season's??? something comes to mind about snowballs and hot places.

Lonestar
05-21-2009, 11:11 PM
So is his point that there is a possibility of having a worse d than last season's??? something comes to mind about snowballs and hot places.


there is always that possibility not likely but with the upcoming schedule in stead of losing some games by 40 it may only be 5..

Unless the DL takes a total dump this D should be better..

but Even if it is better there are going to be times that because almost the entire defense is new to each other some one is going to drop a coverage or assignment.. It will happen and it could cause us to lose a game or two..

Dirk
05-22-2009, 06:40 AM
On paper the defense looks "old" in some respects and "question marks" in others.

Who knows? Until we actually see what Nolan puts on the field this upcoming year we can bash, question and even cheer, but we won't know how it will pan out until game day.

I go into every year hoping and thinking the best. As I am sure most of the fans do. So I say F the others, lets see what they can do before they get snubbed. It only makes it that much more sweet when we prove them wrong!

NameUsedBefore
05-22-2009, 07:05 AM
He is hoping to build a four- man linebacking corps from a long list of prospects and holdovers, some of whom were defensive linemen just last year.

Who will play on the three- man line is still a mystery. During the most recent minicamp practice open to the wretches, the D-linemen did their drills as far from the media as they could without getting lost in the trees. It took a pair of binoculars to watch J'Vonne Parker and Ryan McBean rassle.

In this case, that is not a figure of speech. Defensive coordinator Mike Nolan had to pull them aside. I'm not sure what he said, but it looked something like, "Fellas. It's May. Come on."

When you remove all the D-linemen working with the linebackers — including first-round draft pick Robert Ayers, Jarvis Moss and Tim Crowder — you end up with a bunch of no-names on the interior line.

Which might work out. It does sometimes. But it also makes this ground zero for working on that miracle. The loyal parishioner cites draft pedigrees for the candidates who have them, but for players who have been out of school as long as some of these guys, that's beside the point.

Matthias Askew was a fourth-round pick, but that was five years ago. He has appeared in six NFL games since then. Ronald Fields was a fifth-round pick, four years ago, who has been a serviceable backup. Carlton Powell was a fifth-round pick a year ago who missed his entire rookie year after tearing an Achilles tendon.

McBean was a fourth-round pick two years ago who appeared in one game and has been a practice squad guy since. In only four seasons, Parker has signed contracts with Cleveland, Dallas, Cleveland again, Baltimore, Atlanta, Carolina and now, Denver.

In fact, the most established players in the group — Marcus Thomas and Kenny Peterson — are holdovers from the Broncos' 30th-ranked scoring defense last year. And, of course, there are undrafted free agents galore.

Although McDaniels is counting heavily on the New England system to propel the Broncos to success, he doesn't get much credit for the system from national analysts because it hasn't traveled that well for Eric Mangini, Romeo Crennel and Charlie Weis, three earlier acorns from the Bill Belichick coaching tree.

Essentially why I think Denver is going to get smoked this year and he didn't even mention the schedule.

silkamilkamonico
05-22-2009, 12:45 PM
I'm not sure Bronco fans recognize what a 4-12 or 5-11 season looks like. They're spoiled. They think 8-8 is just embarassing. Well, get ready for a 4-12 season, folks. Maybe they have to get worse before they get better, but they are definitely going to be worse.

If you didn't actually read what Krieger is saying, it's that the front seven is filled with wash outs and folks playing out of position. It's going to be a lean year.

8-8 hasn't been anything helpful to us. Other than 1 fluke year where we bowed out of the playoffs, at home, in a blowout loss to Pittsburgh, the 8-8 seasons have kept us mediocre, arguably. We were never bad enough to receive an impact player, and never good enough to make the jump over the mediocre hump.

In a game based off current trends and what have you done for me lately, I'd take a risk of 1 or 2 4-12 seasons rather than the stagnant 8-8 seasons over a course of 10 years.

LRtagger
05-22-2009, 01:12 PM
Yea going 8-8 or 7-9 year after year while getting blown out by the Chefs, Faid, Lions, Rams, Chargers multiple times, etc is much more respectable than what we have as a franchise right now.

I don't know why writers are so enamored with what this team has accomplished in the past several years. This team has not been consistently successful since the late 90's.

If we go 4-12 or 5-11 this season, but are competetive in all 16 games, I see that as an improvement over what we have done in recent memory.

Lonestar
05-22-2009, 03:10 PM
Yea going 8-8 or 7-9 year after year while getting blown out by the Chefs, Faid, Lions, Rams, Chargers multiple times, etc is much more respectable than what we have as a franchise right now.

I don't know why writers are so enamored with what this team has accomplished in the past several years. This team has not been consistently successful since the late 90's.

If we go 4-12 or 5-11 this season, but are competetive in all 16 games, I see that as an improvement over what we have done in recent memory.



I just hope for competive games this coming year.. While we learn the schemes and give the rookies playing time.. then we should be gang busters in 2010-2013.. or longer if we can resign some of the great players..

OrangeHoof
05-22-2009, 03:33 PM
I have no problem going through lean times if it is going to lead to better times but the Broncos have had so few of those years since 1977 that I don't think many of our fans know what it's like. They should be thankful that the Chiefs and Raiders are in the same boat as they are and the Chargers have some issues of their own to be concerned with.

Slick
05-22-2009, 03:35 PM
Oh no, they don't respect us.

OrangeHoof
05-22-2009, 03:36 PM
If we go 4-12 or 5-11 this season, but are competetive in all 16 games, I see that as an improvement over what we have done in recent memory.

And what if we're not competitive in all 16 games and go 4-12 or 5-11? What if we continue to get blown out a couple of times a year? What will you say about all the changes then?

LRtagger
05-22-2009, 03:44 PM
And what if we're not competitive in all 16 games and go 4-12 or 5-11? What if we continue to get blown out a couple of times a year? What will you say about all the changes then?

I dont know...shouldn't I give it 10 years before I decide that it's not working?

Even 10 years wasn't enough for some people, though.

I'm willing to give Coach 2-3 years to improve this team. I believe we will see improvements in some areas as early as this season. By 2011 I expect us to be legitimate contenders...a top 10 scoring team and a top 15 defense. If we don't meet those goals, then I expect changes to be made.

Simple Jaded
05-22-2009, 03:50 PM
If Denver loses 12 games Josh McDaniels should be fired (But won't be), plain and simple, and he'd have no one to blame but himself.

He put himself in a win-now situation with his arrogance, he has to deliver, and merely being "Competitive" is not enough, they were already competitive.......

Lonestar
05-22-2009, 03:53 PM
I dont know...shouldn't I give it 10 years before I decide that it's not working?

Even 10 years wasn't enough for some people, though.

I'm willing to give Coach 2-3 years to improve this team. I believe we will see improvements in some areas as early as this season. By 2011 I expect us to be legitimate contenders...a top 10 scoring team and a top 15 defense. If we don't meet those goals, then I expect changes to be made.


Great comeback..

Those that loved mike so much they were willing to overlook those things they are now holding Josh to or expecting Josh to make this a playoff team by SEPT are really expecting to much considering just how bad the team wound up last year..

to have fired almost every starter on D all the coaches and to come back in one year..

I have to wonder if they would have expected that from mike also.. or would they have settled for 8-8 and a EOY presser saying we are close wait till next year.. all of our 18 Rb's will be back, the Safeties will get better as they learn slowitts new scheme and th DL will finally in their third year become the the forces they were drafted to do..

many of the lemmings would have bought it again because mike was the Master mind..Pathetic..

Lonestar
05-22-2009, 03:55 PM
If Denver loses 12 games Josh McDaniels should be fired (But won't be), plain and simple, and he'd have no one to blame but himself.

He put himself in a win-now situation with his arrogance, he has to deliver, and merely being "Competitive" is not enough, they were already competitive.......

yep with OAK and KC, beyond that not so..

NameUsedBefore
05-22-2009, 04:00 PM
yep with OAK and KC, beyond that not so..

Steelers, Saints, Chargers, Falcons off the top of my haven't-slept-today head.

Simple Jaded
05-22-2009, 04:04 PM
yep with OAK and KC, beyond that not so..

You keep telling yourself that, with the talent on that offense the Broncos had a chance in any game, all Doogie had to do was fix the defense.......

Simple Jaded
05-22-2009, 04:08 PM
Steelers, Saints, Chargers, Falcons off the top of my haven't-slept-today head.

The Jets, Bucs.......Vikings and Titans the year before.......

Lonestar
05-22-2009, 04:17 PM
You keep telling yourself that, with the talent on that offense the Broncos had a chance in any game, all Doogie had to do was fix the defense.......

so you think and a few others.. We all know that when a new guy comes in 98% of the time he is going to install his Scheme.. so do you really believe that the offense would have been alright? knowing that they were all going to need to learn the new offense..

You can;t be naive enough tot think that Josh would have tried to keep mikes play books can you.. and I;m sure that Pat was on board with him bringing his own in or he would not have been hired..

Now what happened between Josh and jay is regrettable but it is done..

If your unable to get past that, then why are you here?

Do you expect to have Pat fire him ?

Do you realistically expect them to be a playoff team or Pat will fire him?

this team needed MUCH more than just a quick fix on D.. this team won some games last year because of lousy officiating and frankly was not even close to being in 4-5 more of them.. Had we been close ion a few of those games perhaps you would be right..

Now I guess you think that having the best O between the 20's, a pro bowl QB is great. But I'm not, never have been, it is a nice to have. But I'd rather have team work, than individual merit badges..

If Josh does not do that over the next few years then it is indeed time to move on.. but next year give me a ******* break..

Simple Jaded
05-22-2009, 04:19 PM
Great comeback..

Those that loved mike so much they were willing to overlook those things they are now holding Josh to or expecting Josh to make this a playoff team by SEPT are really expecting to much considering just how bad the team wound up last year..

to have fired almost every starter on D all the coaches and to come back in one year..

I have to wonder if they would have expected that from mike also.. or would they have settled for 8-8 and a EOY presser saying we are close wait till next year.. all of our 18 Rb's will be back, the Safeties will get better as they learn slowitts new scheme and th DL will finally in their third year become the the forces they were drafted to do..

many of the lemmings would have bought it again because mike was the Master mind..Pathetic..

Mike Shanahan had this team headed the right direction, had you asked me before the turn around I would have said he should have been fired, but Bowlen pulled the trigger about 4 years too late.

Doogie's situation is self-inflicted, had he focused more on improving the real issues instead of turning the Broncos into his own little fire-hydrant, he would be in an ideal situation: Brilliant talent on offense and all the time he needed to fix the defense. A down season was inevitable, imo, even before his stupidity became the talk of the NFL, but now a 4-12 season will be his to own because of his stupidity.

Lucky for him, Bowlen has too much invested to fire him after one season.......

Simple Jaded
05-22-2009, 04:27 PM
McDaniels stupidity is the main reason this franchise is losing respect.......

Lonestar
05-22-2009, 04:32 PM
Mike Shanahan had this team headed the right direction, had you asked me before the turn around I would have said he should have been fired, but Bowlen pulled the trigger about 4 years too late.

Doogie's situation is self-inflicted, had he focused more on improving the real issues instead of turning the Broncos into his own little fire-hydrant, he would be in an ideal situation: Brilliant talent on offense and all the time he needed to fix the defense. A down season was inevitable, imo, even before his stupidity became the talk of the NFL, but now a 4-12 season will be his to own because of his stupidity.

Lucky for him, Bowlen has too much invested to fire him after one season.......


now what you call stupid, just may be smart as a fox..

afterall he was the one studying game film and talking to jay before the trade stuff went down..

And since jay could do no wrong with mike, perhaps he saw or heard something that you and other jay fans did not..

I'm sure that you will never get on board with Josh until he has us in the SB.. and maybe not even then, as IIRC your a huge jay fan to start with..

So I ask again If your so unhappy with the Broncos why are you here?..

T.K.O.
05-22-2009, 04:34 PM
16th in the league in scoring,a 3 year playoff drought and stale playcalling the only thing we had going was the bootleg which opposing D's could see coming ( i know because i did and i'm not a dc),that and the occasional spectacular play by cutler.
and dont get me started on the defense mike was fielding....
besides he promised the playoffs in 08' and couldnt get his team to 9-7 which in most divisions wouldnt have been a wildcard.it was'nt gonna be any easier this year so....."if it dont work...fix it!"

Lonestar
05-22-2009, 04:35 PM
McDaniels stupidity is the main reason this franchise is losing respect.......

from whom the fans that are arm chair QB's or TV talking heads that do not have a clue on what really happened..

Why are you concerned if no one respects us the easier it is to sneak up on them until we get the scheme down pat..

For me it works in our favor, again, perhaps smart as a fox..

Lonestar
05-22-2009, 04:37 PM
16th in the league in scoring,a 3 year playoff drought and stale playcalling the only thing we had going was the bootleg which opposing D's could see coming ( i know because i did and i'm not a dc),that and the occasional spectacular play by cutler.
and dont get me started on the defense mike was fielding....
besides he promised the playoffs in 08' and couldnt get his team to 9-7 which in most divisions wouldnt have been a wildcard.it was'nt gonna be any easier this year so....."if it dont work...fix it!"



BTW bootlegs Hmmmmm was that not what got Jake fired? because the DC schemed for it..


Ahahahahahahahahha

silkamilkamonico
05-22-2009, 04:59 PM
And what if we're not competitive in all 16 games and go 4-12 or 5-11? What if we continue to get blown out a couple of times a year? What will you say about all the changes then?

"Well, at least under Shanahan, we would go 8-8!!"

*woo-pee-f'n-do*

silkamilkamonico
05-22-2009, 05:01 PM
McDaniels stupidity is the main reason this franchise is losing respect.......

Yea, nevermind the continuous underachieveing seasons year, after year, after year, after year, under Shanahan.

"At least under Shanahan, we were always mediocre..." :rolleyes:

T.K.O.
05-22-2009, 05:10 PM
Yea, nevermind the continuous underachieveing seasons year, after year, after year, after year, under Shanahan.

"At least under Shanahan, we were always mediocre..." :rolleyes:

when shanny couldnt get the team up to beat oakland or a flailing buffalo at home to clinch the div,i knew he had to go,i dont think it was that he was a bad coach he just was tooooo settled in,kinda like most employees after theyve been on the job too long they lose their motivation.
he just didnt seem to be able to get the guys fired up,and attitude is almost as important as talent in the nfl.

Lonestar
05-22-2009, 05:17 PM
when shanny couldnt get the team up to beat oakland or a flailing buffalo at home to clinch the div,i knew he had to go,i dont think it was that he was a bad coach he just was tooooo settled in,kinda like most employees after theyve been on the job too long they lose their motivation.
he just didnt seem to be able to get the guys fired up,and attitude is almost as important as talent in the nfl.


in years past they would beat the snot out of OAK or someone one week and then the next lose to a truly horrible team.. and not just loss but in some cases get their asses kicked..

that stuff IMO just should not happen.. that is part of coaching having your team ready on game day..

How many MNF games did we choke in? how many other games when it was a nationally televised game..

IMHO we had not much left after the HOF vets retired.. mostly smoke and mirrors sneaking up on asome temas to keep our record decent..

Any one want to look at mike record without OAK being factored in.. without looking at it I'll bet it is not so great.. and we all know that he had the team motivated for all of those games..

rcsodak
05-22-2009, 06:21 PM
Essentially why I think Denver is going to get smoked this year and he didn't even mention the schedule.

You had to quote that entire post, just for that glowing reply??? :rolleyes:

broncfn90
05-22-2009, 06:52 PM
Uhm, Denver's just coming off 3 underachieving consecutive seasons where we didn't even make the playoffs. We've won 1 playoff game in 10 years. We've won 1 division title in 10 years. And somehow, we're just now losing respect? I'd say that was taken away probably anywhere from 3-6 years ago.

not to mention we just traded away a still young and good QB....

OrangeHoof
05-22-2009, 07:02 PM
Lucky for him, Bowlen has too much invested to fire him after one season.......

True, so there's no reason to even bring it up.

I suppose what irks me are the pompoms who think a) replacing a bunch of bad defenders with more bad defenders and a new system will instantly fix the defense and b) taking Cutler out of the offense will instantly improve the offense. They're not based in reality.

The defense will likely be as putrid as they were in 2008 and the offense will either adapt to a Moreno-based running game and fewer downfield passes or will be forced to play catch up with a pedestrian quarterback at the helm.

Hey, I'd love to be proven wrong because I'm a Broncos fan but I've been watching pro football since the old AFL days and "fixing" the Broncos the way the new bosses have chosen rarely produces immediate success. It might bear fruit in 3-4 years but, by then, there may be another coaching change, another new system, another new "genius" hired to change everything, etc. That's the treadmill that many NFL franchises are in. And the track record of Belichick disciples hasn't made me feel particularly optimistic that my gut is wrong about this.

OrangeHoof
05-22-2009, 07:18 PM
Any one want to look at mike record without OAK being factored in.. without looking at it I'll bet it is not so great..

Shanahan's career record with Denver: 138-86 (.616)
Shanahan's career record vs. Oakland: 21-7 (.750)
Shanahan's career record with Denver excluding games with Oakland: 117-79 (.597).

So, even if you exclude games against the Raiders, Shanahan won almost 60% of the time. I wouldn't categorize that as "not so great". In fact, I bet when all is said and done it will be "better than McDaniels". :lol:

Next bullshit charge?

Lonestar
05-22-2009, 07:45 PM
Shanahan's career record with Denver: 138-86 (.616)
Shanahan's career record vs. Oakland: 21-7 (.750)
Shanahan's career record with Denver excluding games with Oakland: 117-79 (.597).

So, even if you exclude games against the Raiders, Shanahan won almost 60% of the time. I wouldn't categorize that as "not so great". In fact, I bet when all is said and done it will be "better than McDaniels". :lol:

Next bullshit charge?
.
THanks for the research Glad you thought it was a BS charge

Perhaps the wordage I should have used was..

Any one want to look at mike record without OAK being factored in.. without looking at it I'll bet it is not AS (instead of so) great..

Now wanna look at since all the HOF Players left.. Bet that is not AS hot either..

2001 8-8
2002 9-7
2003 10-6
2004 10-6
2005 13-3
2006 9-7
2007 7-9
2008 8-8
.. 57%

1996 13-3
1997 12-4
1998 14-2
1999 6-10
2000 11-5
70%

My what a difference few HOF players make..

Lonestar
05-22-2009, 07:50 PM
True, so there's no reason to even bring it up.

I suppose what irks me are the pompoms who think a) replacing a bunch of bad defenders with more bad defenders and a new system will instantly fix the defense and b) taking Cutler out of the offense will instantly improve the offense. They're not based in reality.

The defense will likely be as putrid as they were in 2008 and the offense will either adapt to a Moreno-based running game and fewer downfield passes or will be forced to play catch up with a pedestrian quarterback at the helm.

Hey, I'd love to be proven wrong because I'm a Broncos fan but I've been watching pro football since the old AFL days and "fixing" the Broncos the way the new bosses have chosen rarely produces immediate success. It might bear fruit in 3-4 years but, by then, there may be another coaching change, another new system, another new "genius" hired to change everything, etc. That's the treadmill that many NFL franchises are in. And the track record of Belichick disciples hasn't made me feel particularly optimistic that my gut is wrong about this.



I know of NO ONE that realistically thinks the defense has been fixed just because of the scheme.. or as you said bringing in more bad players..

I believe that MOST folks know that it is going to be a trying year and unlike you are willing to give it a chance..

I personally think as we speak we are 4 to 6 game winner this year because of all the changes and the brutal schedule..

Had we not replaced mike I think it would have been about the same if not worse..

At least now we have some semblance of believing the Defense will be fixed, before we all knew it would be Offense only much like INDY used to do.. let manning win it all with the pass.. until they went out in the playoffs because they had NO defense..

rcsodak
05-22-2009, 09:01 PM
yep with OAK and KC, beyond that not so..

I dunno, jr.....


......I seem to remember Denver getting L's against them......




....their 1st and 2nd wins of the season, no less. :lol:

rcsodak
05-22-2009, 09:08 PM
You keep telling yourself that, with the talent on that offense the Broncos had a chance in any game, all Doogie had to do was fix the defense.......

You keep telling yourself that.....


..because "with that talent", the Broncos were well down the line of points scored.

You act like they were world beaters! Do I have to remind you of the pathetic play of the offense vs OAK? SAN? KC? NE?

Matter of fact, they SHOULD have been! #2 offense in yards, and only #16 offense in points scored. Last I saw, that's AVERAGE!

And how many years are you going to be satisfied at having "a chance in any game"? Personally, I'm tired of it! The last 3 years have been mediocre at best, with Nothing to look forward to. If I wanted that, I can think of 13 other teams I could root for. :coffee:

silkamilkamonico
05-22-2009, 09:37 PM
not to mention we just traded away a still young and good QB....

Great point. Who cares about winning when you have a young and talented QB that can throw the pigskin over them mountains.

T.K.O.
05-23-2009, 02:33 PM
Great point. Who cares about winning when you have a young and talented QB that can throw the pigskin over them mountains.

if jay grew a cool stache...he would kinda look like uncle rico:D

OrangeHoof
05-23-2009, 02:55 PM
.
Glad you thought it was a BS charge


Because it was. It's as bogus as saying:

"I think Tony Dungy is a crappy coach. if you took away all the wins he had against Houston, his record wouldn't be so good. And if he didn't have Hall-of-Fame players like Peyton Manning and Marvin Harrison, his record wouldn't be so great. They'll be so much better with another coach."

I'm willing to accept that Shanahan's achilles was not being able to fix the defense despite coaching changes, major trades, free agent signings and high draft choices. You could even make the case it was time to go.

But the solution for that should have been to hire a head coach who has a history of fixing defenses. Mike Nolan is not that coach and neither is Josh McDaniels.

Lonestar
05-23-2009, 03:05 PM
.
THanks for the research Glad you thought it was a BS charge

Perhaps the wordage I should have used was..

Any one want to look at mike record without OAK being factored in.. without looking at it I'll bet it is not AS (instead of so) great..

Now wanna look at since all the HOF Players left.. Bet that is not AS hot either..

2001 8-8
2002 9-7
2003 10-6
2004 10-6
2005 13-3
2006 9-7
2007 7-9
2008 8-8
.. 57%

1996 13-3
1997 12-4
1998 14-2
1999 6-10
2000 11-5
70%

My what a difference few HOF players make..


Because it was. It's as bogus as saying:

"I think Tony Dungy is a crappy coach. if you took away all the wins he had against Houston, his record wouldn't be so good. And if he didn't have Hall-of-Fame players like Peyton Manning and Marvin Harrison, his record wouldn't be so great. They'll be so much better with another coach."

I'm willing to accept that Shanahan's achilles was not being able to fix the defense despite coaching changes, major trades, free agent signings and high draft choices. You could even make the case it was time to go.

But the solution for that should have been to hire a head coach who has a history of fixing defenses. Mike Nolan is not that coach and neither is Josh McDaniels.


good response even though you took my post out of context..

If you do not feel that Josh or Nolan are not the answers your entitled to that thought.. but the real fact was mike did not have a clue about D nor for the most part player acquisitions..

And frankly I think it is way to early to judge the new regime simply because you either like mike or jay to much to get past it..

I for one will give Pat and the new guys the benefit of doubt until they prove themselves on the field to more incompetent than mike was..

Simple Jaded
05-23-2009, 03:12 PM
now what you call stupid, just may be smart as a fox..

afterall he was the one studying game film and talking to jay before the trade stuff went down..

And since jay could do no wrong with mike, perhaps he saw or heard something that you and other jay fans did not..

I'm sure that you will never get on board with Josh until he has us in the SB.. and maybe not even then, as IIRC your a huge jay fan to start with..

So I ask again If your so unhappy with the Broncos why are you here?..

I could have asked you the same thing, you've been bitching about Shanahan for years, funny how your opinion of me/attitude towards me has changed now that we don't see eye to eye.

And if Doogie is going by game film he wouldn't have passed up better offers to get Orton.......

Lonestar
05-23-2009, 03:16 PM
I could have asked you the same thing, you've been bitching about Shanahan for years, funny how your opinion of me/attitude towards me has changed now that we don't see eye to eye.

And if Doogie is going by game film he wouldn't have passed up better offers to get Orton.......

I have no Idea what you mean by this..

:confused:

Simple Jaded
05-23-2009, 03:17 PM
Yea, nevermind the continuous underachieveing seasons year, after year, after year, after year, under Shanahan.

"At least under Shanahan, we were always mediocre..." :rolleyes:


The Broncos were finally rebuilding instead of getting by with the remnants of a Championship team, it had to be done, I have no doubt that Shanahan could win another Championship with improvement on the Defensive side of the ball.......I have nothing but doubt in Doogie.......

Simple Jaded
05-23-2009, 03:28 PM
You keep telling yourself that.....


..because "with that talent", the Broncos were well down the line of points scored.

You act like they were world beaters! Do I have to remind you of the pathetic play of the offense vs OAK? SAN? KC? NE?

Matter of fact, they SHOULD have been! #2 offense in yards, and only #16 offense in points scored. Last I saw, that's AVERAGE!

And how many years are you going to be satisfied at having "a chance in any game"? Personally, I'm tired of it! The last 3 years have been mediocre at best, with Nothing to look forward to. If I wanted that, I can think of 13 other teams I could root for. :coffee:

Somebody has already posted where the Broncos offense actually ranked in scoring and it wasn't 16th (I think it was 11th), but since you've brought it up, I would be more concerned about the 08 inconsistencies if the offense didn't have 8 starters with less than 3 years of NFL experience.

I'm not acting like anything other than the fact that offense had Championship caliber talent.......now it has a Brian Griese with Jake Plummers beard.......yippy.

I'll let you get back to thinking the past 3 years of medioricity is now behind you.......

Simple Jaded
05-23-2009, 03:32 PM
I have no Idea what you mean by this..

:confused:

If I were criticizing Jay Cutler instead it'd be crystal clear to you.

Tell me why you're still here and I'll explain it to you.......

D1g1tal j1m
05-23-2009, 03:49 PM
The Broncos were finally rebuilding instead of getting by with the remnants of a Championship team, it had to be done, I have no doubt that Shanahan could win another Championship with improvement on the Defensive side of the ball.......I have nothing but doubt in Doogie.......

I have been saying that for the last few years in regards to him winning if he improved the Defense but he never did or seemed to care for it.

Shan could not build a Defense that was even competitive the last 3 years and changed Coordinates more than I changed my socks. He was clueless on signing and drafting Defensive talent and tried to change coordinators and defensive systems to make up for it.

The 2008 Defense roster that he assembled was horrible. Add to that his insistence that Slowik remain coordinator would lead me to believe that we were not going to improve defensively if he was still here. Shan had to go, he put his loyalties to his coaches he hired (who were not getting the job done) over the health and success of the Organization.

silkamilkamonico
05-23-2009, 04:06 PM
The Broncos were finally rebuilding instead of getting by with the remnants of a Championship team, it had to be done, I have no doubt that Shanahan could win another Championship with improvement on the Defensive side of the ball.......I have nothing but doubt in Doogie.......

LMAO

Denver's been rebuilding since 1998. 10 years. How much time did the organization want. Nobody doubts Shanahan could have won with improvement on the defensive side of the ball. Almost everybody doubts that he could have actually improved the defensive side of the ball.

LMAO. 10 years.

Requiem / The Dagda
05-23-2009, 05:31 PM
Zack Morris, you have been spot on today. How's life Silk?

Lonestar
05-23-2009, 06:49 PM
The Broncos were finally rebuilding instead of getting by with the remnants of a Championship team, it had to be done, I have no doubt that Shanahan could win another Championship with improvement on the Defensive side of the ball.......I have nothing but doubt in Doogie.......



Without a complete rebuild of the defense and special teams and a total nuking of the staff of these two areas mike would not have had a chance to be a long term winner..

He rolled the dice and lost playing the offense only card..

Slick
05-23-2009, 07:08 PM
Because it was. It's as bogus as saying:

"I think Tony Dungy is a crappy coach. if you took away all the wins he had against Houston, his record wouldn't be so good. And if he didn't have Hall-of-Fame players like Peyton Manning and Marvin Harrison, his record wouldn't be so great. They'll be so much better with another coach."

I'm willing to accept that Shanahan's achilles was not being able to fix the defense despite coaching changes, major trades, free agent signings and high draft choices. You could even make the case it was time to go.

But the solution for that should have been to hire a head coach who has a history of fixing defenses. Mike Nolan is not that coach and neither is Josh McDaniels.

Most of us "pom poms" are just waiting to find out what will happen and trying to be optimistic. Nolan, maybe so, but the new Coach? Since you see the future, hook me up with next Wednesday's Power ball numbers.

MOtorboat
05-23-2009, 07:25 PM
Most of us "pom poms" are just waiting to find out what will happen and trying to be optimistic. Nolan, maybe so, but the new Coach? Since you see the future, hook me up with next Wednesday's Power ball numbers.

Brian Billick was an offensive genius before taking the Baltimore job...

broncohead
05-23-2009, 07:29 PM
Brian Billick was an offensive genius before taking the Baltimore job...

But McD hasn't really shown he has tried to UPGRADE the defense. It looks just like the Shanny days when he would add a bunch of middle of the road guys or over the hill players (Dawkins = Lynch). I just don't see an improvement at all.

MOtorboat
05-23-2009, 07:31 PM
But McD hasn't really shown he has tried to UPGRADE the defense. It looks just like the Shanny days when he would add a bunch of middle of the road guys or over the hill players (Dawkins = Lynch). I just don't see an improvement at all.

I guess I missed the start of the season.

Slick
05-23-2009, 07:33 PM
But McD hasn't really shown he has tried to UPGRADE the defense. It looks just like the Shanny days when he would add a bunch of middle of the road guys or over the hill players (Dawkins = Lynch). I just don't see an improvement at all.

Rome wasn't built in a day head. We didn't have the first 10 picks in the draft. It's going to take a few years to rebuild that mess. Until then, we'll have a few rent a scrubs. As young as McDaniels is, I think he knows how important both sides of the ball are.

MOtorboat
05-23-2009, 07:35 PM
Rome wasn't built in a day head. We didn't have the first 10 picks in the draft. It's going to take a few years to rebuild that mess. Until then, we'll have a few rent a scrubs. As young as McDaniels is, I think he knows how important both sides of the ball are.

I think having upwards of 8 new starters, and several players playing different roles from their roles last year is a ton of change...

Lonestar
05-23-2009, 07:40 PM
I think having upwards of 8 new starters, and several players playing different roles from their roles last year is a ton of change...


granted but the real issue is will they know each other well enough to make a HUGE difference since it is afterall team work that allows you to win.. It may take a year or two to make that difference..

Slick
05-23-2009, 07:41 PM
I think having upwards of 8 new starters, and several players playing different roles from their roles last year is a ton of change...

I do too Mo, and I'm excited about that. I'm not missing head's point here, after all, I groaned at some of the signings too. I've just learned to accept the fact that it's going to take more than one offseason, and I didn't expect the new regime to go nuts in year one. They need to implement their schemes and see what they've got before they throw a match on the place.

Lonestar
05-23-2009, 07:44 PM
I do too Mo, and I'm excited about that. I'm not missing head's point here, after all, I groaned at some of the signings too. I've just learned to accept the fact that it's going to take more than one offseason, and I didn't expect the new regime to go nuts in year one. They need to implement their schemes and see what they've got before they throw a match on the place.



but what they did see they knew after a short time to bring ion the demo squad and basically start over..

this defense imploded about game 18 in the 2005 season..:salute:

broncohead
05-23-2009, 07:58 PM
Rome wasn't built in a day head. We didn't have the first 10 picks in the draft. It's going to take a few years to rebuild that mess. Until then, we'll have a few rent a scrubs. As young as McDaniels is, I think he knows how important both sides of the ball are.

I see your points. Even after the questional offseason by McD imo I'm still willing to give him a chance. The hireing of Nolan was the only move I thought made a difference for the defense. I was expecting a little more on the DL as we all know is our weakest area on the team. It just reminds me a lot like Shanny's offseason when the DL was ignored (besides 05)

Lonestar
05-23-2009, 08:06 PM
I see your points. Even after the questional offseason by McD imo I'm still willing to give him a chance. The hireing of Nolan was the only move I thought made a difference for the defense. I was expecting a little more on the DL as we all know is our weakest area on the team. It just reminds me a lot like Shanny's offseason when the DL was ignored (besides 05)


I agree with what you said here but they did not see anyone they thought was right for them and the scheme they intend to employ.. and to quote Josh there was not sense in bringing (draft) someone in to look at IF we did not think they would stick..


frankly there were so many other holes to fill if we had 8 picks on day one it most likely would not have been enough..

Healing this defense is going to take a few years.. it took 14 to put it in cardiac arrest..

Way to much offense and not enough coaching, players or attitude finally caused it to DIE.. may mikeys 2008 defense RIP..

Simple Jaded
05-23-2009, 08:07 PM
LMAO

Denver's been rebuilding since 1998. 10 years. How much time did the organization want. Nobody doubts Shanahan could have won with improvement on the defensive side of the ball. Almost everybody doubts that he could have actually improved the defensive side of the ball.

LMAO. 10 years.

They been rebuilding for about 3 years, the rest of the time they've been shifting on the fly by trying to plug second rate QB's and Would-be Home Run free agents into a system built around the likes of Rod Smith, Tom Nalen, Trevor Pryce, Al Wilson.......they started building for the future in 2005 when they traded their 1st rounder to Washington.......

Lonestar
05-23-2009, 08:15 PM
They been rebuilding for about 3 years, the rest of the time they've been shifting on the fly by trying to plug second rate QB's and Would-be Home Run free agents into a system built around the likes of Rod Smith, Tom Nalen, Trevor Pryce, Al Wilson.......they started building for the future in 2005 when they traded their 1st rounder to Washington.......

While your really correct here and none of the die hards wanted to admit it they should have been better at drafting forever and not had to FA us into oblivion..

They were way to expensive and for the most part were short stop gap fixes.. that in most cases did not work..

I remember all the refrains of "we do not rebuild, we reload"..

Seems they were all wrong..

Slick
05-23-2009, 08:33 PM
I see your points. Even after the questional offseason by McD imo I'm still willing to give him a chance. The hireing of Nolan was the only move I thought made a difference for the defense. I was expecting a little more on the DL as we all know is our weakest area on the team. It just reminds me a lot like Shanny's offseason when the DL was ignored (besides 05)

Hopefully the new DL coach is a magician or a miracle worker. I had basically the same expectations.

OrangeHoof
05-23-2009, 08:46 PM
I think having upwards of 8 new starters, and several players playing different roles from their roles last year is a ton of change...

That's Obamian. It isn't whether you change things that matter, it's whether the changes actually WORK.

Hope and change won't fix the Broncos any better than it will fix our economy.

Hell, if change was all you wanted, why not trade all our o-lineman for draft picks and start five UDFAs up front? That would be change too.

broncohead
05-23-2009, 08:51 PM
I agree with what you said here but they did not see anyone they thought was right for them and the scheme they intend to employ.. and to quote Josh there was not sense in bringing (draft) someone in to look at IF we did not think they would stick..


frankly there were so many other holes to fill if we had 8 picks on day one it most likely would not have been enough..

Healing this defense is going to take a few years.. it took 14 to put it in cardiac arrest..

Way to much offense and not enough coaching, players or attitude finally caused it to DIE.. may mikeys 2008 defense RIP..

I don't think the FO was prepared for the draft. Only 100 players on the board and only drafting the players brought in for workouts. You can view this 2 ways imo 1. they wanted their guy for the system (most popular) or 2. they didn't want to risk a draft pick on some one they never scouted because they where not prepared.

Slick
05-23-2009, 09:22 PM
Not to be a smartass here, but I view it differently. The guys they wanted, scouted and targeted as far as big uglies went were off the board at 12. Let's face it, there weren't many.

Requiem / The Dagda
05-23-2009, 09:32 PM
Not to be a smartass here, but I view it differently. The guys they wanted, scouted and targeted as far as big uglies went were off the board at 12. Let's face it, there weren't many.

Bing, bang, boom. Slick wins. :beer:

Slick
05-23-2009, 09:38 PM
Bing, bang, boom. Slick wins. :beer:

Don't start shit babycakes. I wasn't trying to win. Go eat your pizza.

Requiem / The Dagda
05-23-2009, 09:39 PM
Don't start shit babycakes. I wasn't trying to win. Go eat your pizza.

I had my two slices and biked 8 miles. I am not going to ruin my body for you.

Lonestar
05-23-2009, 10:19 PM
I don't think the FO was prepared for the draft. Only 100 players on the board and only drafting the players brought in for workouts. You can view this 2 ways imo 1. they wanted their guy for the system (most popular) or 2. they didn't want to risk a draft pick on some one they never scouted because they where not prepared.

While I can see what you are saying..

I believe it was.. They knew what they wanted and had ruled out most above 100..

I'll also bet it was not JUST 100 probably a few more..


If you know this guy is a square peg, why try to fit him into a round hole..

If they only brought in 30 or so guys and when to scout the rest.
I do not see that you have to have 350 on your board..

If YOU know in your heart that the other 250 are not going to make the squad, why have them on your board.. all that does is create confusion when the chips are down..

Now I suspect that they scouted alot of folks, as you can see from the number of UDFA they signed.. But they had a plan for their choices and stuck with it..

That is how I see it..

I have seen nothing to discredit that threory...

Some will say they fired there scouts a month before the draft.. who cares by then the work, film, reports are written for all the coaches to mull over.. had they not had position coaches by then to figure out who they wanted to get then.. I'd agree with you they were not prepared..


If anything they seemed to have this down to a gnats ass..


If you have any details you would like to share on this, send us a link.. I'm open for discussion.. about the only thing you will never change my mind on is mikey and his DAFTING..:laugh::laugh:

OrangeHoof
05-23-2009, 11:18 PM
Not to be a smartass here, but I view it differently. The guys they wanted, scouted and targeted as far as big uglies went were off the board at 12. Let's face it, there weren't many.

So let's say they had a draft board of 100 players and let's say the guys they thought were worth the #12 pick were all gone. What you do is trade down. Clearly, the Browns decided to trade their way completely out of the first round so it was doable.

Besides understanding your own draft board, you also have to anticipate everyone else's draft board so you aren't taking third-round talent with first-round picks just because it's the highest guy on your board.

The Patriots were classic in their ability to trade up and down to get the exact players they wanted so it can be done. Three years from now, nobody will care if Robert Ayers was a reach but they will care if Ayers doesn't pan out and somebody drafted below him turns into an All-Pro.