PDA

View Full Version : How Shan lost credibility with his players



D1g1tal j1m
06-11-2009, 10:52 AM
Watched NFL Live on ESPN last night and they were talking about how Brad Childress is quickly losing credibility with his players over the Favre dealings. Mark Schlereth used the Dale Carter signing to illustrate his point of how Shan lost credibility with the players when he shared that after Shan stated for 3 years that he would never sign Carter because of his off the field issues and then subsequently signed him when he became a free agent that the locker room took note and Shan began to lose his locker-room.

I thought it was interesting to note.

Superchop 7
06-11-2009, 02:08 PM
I love Shanny, but there are certain things you just don't do.

So glad that we have a coach that understands this concept.

LOL

Shanny did a lousy job in FA "whenever" he picked up a scumbag.

In Colorado, we have "zero" use for scumbags, we want them gone......period.

Send them somewhere else.

Dreadnought
06-11-2009, 02:31 PM
Interesting points, and I agree 100%. It is never worthwhile to bring in a character problem guy like Carter, Travis Henry, Daryl Gardener, fill in the blank. Even when it looks good on paper or short term there are always repurcussions down the road. Ask Dallas how that TO thing worked out for them.

Buff
06-11-2009, 02:49 PM
I don't put a lot of stock in that analysis because Shanahan was also known for cutting guys who weren't earning their keep without hesitation. 3rd round pick and haven't played a snap? Doesn't matter. $22 million free agent signing 1 year into your deal? See ya.

I'm sure guys weren't crazy about bringing in losers like Carter at the time... But Shanahan didn't have a reputation as a guy who would cater to underperforming players. And at the end of the day, players care about production and accountability on the field. They don't care about character.

Simple Jaded
06-11-2009, 03:00 PM
If people think every player in that locker room is a Saint they're kidding themselves. I didn't have as big of a problem with Shanahan signing players questionable character as I had a problem with Shanahan signing players that suck with questionable character.

I don't fault Shanahan for understanding that you can't always win with 53 Boy Scouts.......

silkamilkamonico
06-11-2009, 03:18 PM
I don't put a lot of stock in that analysis because Shanahan was also known for cutting guys who weren't earning their keep without hesitation. 3rd round pick and haven't played a snap? Doesn't matter. $22 million free agent signing 1 year into your deal? See ya.


Which is why Denver was among the tops in the NFL for dead cap space, money spent on players who weren't even on the roster. Last year almost 20% of our cap went to players who didn't play for Denver.

I understand you wanna give players an opportunity considering and some don't work out, but you have to be smarter about what kind of contract you decide to give them and how it affects the cap.

Northman
06-11-2009, 03:18 PM
Dale Carter is a bum. And even though i loved Shanahan i was truly disappointed that even he would of stooped that low to sign that piece of shit.

Buff
06-11-2009, 04:13 PM
Which is why Denver was among the tops in the NFL for dead cap space, money spent on players who weren't even on the roster. Last year almost 20% of our cap went to players who didn't play for Denver.

I understand you wanna give players an opportunity considering and some don't work out, but you have to be smarter about what kind of contract you decide to give them and how it affects the cap.

No argument here.

But as it pertains to losing the respect of players in the lockerroom, I think Schlareth probably overstated that a bit.

Lonestar
06-11-2009, 04:22 PM
Interesting points, and I agree 100%. It is never worthwhile to bring in a character problem guy like Carter, Travis Henry, Daryl Gardener, fill in the blank. Even when it looks good on paper or short term there are always repurcussions down the road. Ask Dallas how that TO thing worked out for them.


I think it may have worked out better with a stronger coach and no Jerry Jones.. TO is a talent that could have been managed better there.. although I hate the cowgirls..

Lonestar
06-11-2009, 04:25 PM
Which is why Denver was among the tops in the NFL for dead cap space, money spent on players who weren't even on the roster. Last year almost 20% of our cap went to players who didn't play for Denver.

I understand you wanna give players an opportunity considering and some don't work out, but you have to be smarter about what kind of contract you decide to give them and how it affects the cap.


was not just last year it has been going on with mike almost the entire time he was here..

spent Pats money like there was no tomorrow.. and about half to those bonuses never saw the end of their contracts..

Lonestar
06-11-2009, 04:26 PM
No argument here.

But as it pertains to losing the respect of players in the lockerroom, I think Schlareth probably overstated that a bit.



stink rarely says something that is not the truth..

dogfish
06-11-2009, 04:43 PM
Interesting points, and I agree 100%. It is never worthwhile to bring in a character problem guy like Carter, Travis Henry, Daryl Gardener, fill in the blank. Even when it looks good on paper or short term there are always repurcussions down the road. Ask Dallas how that TO thing worked out for them.



sorry dread, you're just plain wrong on that one-- ask dallas how the scumbag receiver they had a decade back worked out for 'em. . . . you know, when they were winning super bowls. . . ray lewis is the poster child for scumbags in the NFL, but he has a ring and has been the heart of the league's most consistently excellent defense as long as he's been in baltimore. . . the pats won a ring with corey dillon. . .

i could go on and on, but it's not necessary. . . as much as we'd all LIKE to see the douchebags get their just desserts and fail, it doesn't always happen. . . sure, there are plenty of stories of bums like TO causing their teams to implode, but the unfortunate truth is that those types of guys often do contribute more with their talent than they take away from the team. . .

now, whether we as fans want to see our teams sign the bums is an entirely separate matter, but to suggest that it's always a mistake is inaccurate if winning games is the goal. . .

Shazam!
06-11-2009, 09:07 PM
Jake Plummer is the prime example of how Shanahan treated his players because he is at the position that is held under a microscope.

Even if you hated Jake's inconsistencies, Shanahan rewarded the QB of his 13-3 team by trading up and getting a replacement. Sure Jake wasn't spectacular but he did produce in 2005. Damn shame.

Lonestar
06-11-2009, 09:21 PM
Jake Plummer is the prime example of how Shanahan treated his players because he is at the position that is held under a microscope.

Even if you hated Jake's inconsistencies, Shanahan rewarded the QB of his 13-3 team by trading up and getting a replacement. Sure Jake wasn't spectacular but he did produce in 2005. Damn shame.


he produced all the time he was here.. he was a game day player gave his all on the field on game day.. after getting ragged on about his play he spent his second to last off season with Gary going over every play he was in as a Bronco and the 2005 season showed it with his passer rating and lack of Picks almost setting an NFL record between picks..

Was he the best QB for the long haul hell I do not know, could he have taken this team farther not sure about that either.... but we would have been in the hunt had he been given the toys jay got to play with.. and DECENT DC..

The Glue Factory
06-12-2009, 08:47 PM
he produced all the time he was here.. he was a game day player gave his all on the field on game day.. after getting ragged on about his play he spent his second to last off season with Gary going over every play he was in as a Bronco and the 2005 season showed it with his passer rating and lack of Picks almost setting an NFL record between picks..

Was he the best QB for the long haul hell I do not know, could he have taken this team farther not sure about that either.... but we would have been in the hunt had he been given the toys jay got to play with.. and DECENT DC..

The only problem was that Plummer fell apart after Cutler was drafted. He could have had another 2 or 3 seasons before Cutler was groomed enough to take the reigns and by then Plummer would likely be on his last legs anyway.

Did Shanahan make the right move in benching him? I think so, given our offensive production increased immediately. Did he do the right thing drafting Cutler, heck yea! You don't pass up a QB like that unless you already have a young QB like that. It's just too bad Plummer became a head case unlike Elway when Maddox was drafted. Then again, Elway was much better than Plummer and Maddox much worse than Cutler.

slim
06-12-2009, 09:00 PM
Jake Plummer is the prime example of how Shanahan treated his players because he is at the position that is held under a microscope.

Even if you hated Jake's inconsistencies, Shanahan rewarded the QB of his 13-3 team by trading up and getting a replacement. Sure Jake wasn't spectacular but he did produce in 2005. Damn shame.

He also crapped the bed in the biggest game of his career.

Lonestar
06-12-2009, 09:10 PM
The only problem was that Plummer fell apart after Cutler was drafted. He could have had another 2 or 3 seasons before Cutler was groomed enough to take the reigns and by then Plummer would likely be on his last legs anyway.

Did Shanahan make the right move in benching him? I think so, given our offensive production increased immediately. Did he do the right thing drafting Cutler, heck yea! You don't pass up a QB like that unless you already have a young QB like that. It's just too bad Plummer became a head case unlike Elway when Maddox was drafted. Then again, Elway was much better than Plummer and Maddox much worse than Cutler.

granted Jake did not play well in the fall,, but there are several factors there.. the scheme changed from a roll out play action style to a drop back pocket passing style.. jay got the majority of the snaps in preseason with his prime targets of Scheffler and marshall IIRC.. pretty plain vanilla playbook..

this was not done but for one reason to fit the new QB coming to town..

Jake lost his mentor Gary K who move to HOU as HC and was replaced by humdinger that was fired the year after..

the OLINE was not designed for pocket passing but for ZBS running attack scheme.. and while we did some decent running it was not like years before.. where the teams never knew what we were going to do..

Scheffler stated that he did not get the playbook till about the 8-9 week.. Rod was slowed by a hip issue and IIRC we had a new ROOKIE OLT, replacing Lepsis..

now if you do not get all the changes there, it might be understandable if Jake did not play like his old self..

when jay came in he had marshall and Scheffler who both now "got the playbook" and pretty much had their timing down with the new QB.. something Jake did not get much time with them prior t the season..also by then most of the kinks had been worked out of the new scheme..

all that change much like all of the change we are doing this year wreaks havoc on a well oiled machine..

now could jay have been a great QB sure had the tools for it but then so did Jeff George..

to top off all the Jake VS jay hoopla if you had the best year of your career and nothing was said to you in the off season and then heard your team traded up a couple of spots to get your replacement..

Do you think somewhere in the back of your mind you gonna know it does not matter what you do your gone?

NameUsedBefore
06-12-2009, 09:29 PM
What Jake had the Jay didn't was a defense.

What Jay had that Jake didn't was a surrounding offense.


I hope everyone notices the corollary.