PDA

View Full Version : New article from bleacher report!!!



Elevation inc
06-23-2009, 01:12 AM
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...lly-rebuilding

Regardless of what happens with Brandon Marshall, the Denver Broncos are officially in a rebuilding phase.

The fan base and commentators seem to loathe to admit it, but the Denver Broncos are deconstructing in order to reconstruct.

Apparently the fans believed that hiring a new coach meant leaving the team exactly as it was, without any major restructuring or upheavals of any kind.

It was assumed that McDaniels would come in, leave all the offensive pieces in place, and then promptly rebuild the defense through the draft and free agency.

A pretty big assumption considering this was a coach who came in and heavily emphasized a "system" approach. Players will fit the system, not the other way around. This was a known quantity from day one. Not believing that things would change, and change in a big way, was extremely naive.

Denver fans set themselves up; they believed change to be a painless and easy process. It's not. It's painful and messy.

There's a lot of negative commentary out there: McDaniels is destroying the Denver Broncos, he's losing the locker room, he's chasing off star players.

Anyone who has ever managed anything of any kind, knows that one must initially come in hard and strict, and then slowly loosen up over time. Coming in wishy washy is what REALLY loses locker rooms. It's much harder to regain control than it is to have it in the first place and then begin to soften a little.

In reality, it's a brilliant move by both Bowlen and McDaniels.

This is how the cow ate the cabbage. PERIOD. There's only one way to skin a cat. PERIOD.

Those players with weak stomachs and intent of bloodless coups shall walk the plank.

Which is exactly how year one of rebuilding should go. In this way, Josh McDaniels is more like Tom Coughlin than Bill Belichick.

Coughlin was often critized for coming into the NY Giants with an iron fist. But, alas, it worked, and as he loosened up (ever so slightly) in coming years, the Giants improved.

When it comes to the the 2009-2010 Denver Broncos, think of one of those home makeover TV shows. The kind where they come in, and instead of just repainting, patching a hole in the roof, buying some new furniture, and call it good, they instead bulldoze everything down and start rebuilding.

The end product produced from the bulldozer/rebuild approach, is always better than the patch the roof/hang new curtains approach.

For Broncos fans, it'll mean perhaps having to sit through a rough season or two in order to get to a playoff caliber team. It'll also mean getting over it. Broncos fans and Denver area reporters and commentators are going to have to let it go.

Shannahan is gone, Culter is in Chicago, and Brandon Marshall may very well end up being traded away for future draft picks...

What did you expect?

There's a new Sheriff in town, and his name is Josh McDaniels.

Let's face it: Denver had become a very mediocre team. As a Bronocs fan living out of state, I became very bored with the organization. Assuming I'm an average fan, the lack of interest generated from a .500 team cannot be a good thing.

Now, however, the average fan is paying attention again. As they say in Hollywood, the only bad publicity is no publicity. We're watching again. For some of us, rebuilding is exciting. Certainly more exciting than 9-7, 7-9, and 8-8. Yawn.

You better believe many of us fans that had gotten a bit bored of the Broncos will be tuned in to this franchise in 2009.

The shortest tenure of any modern era Denver Broncos coach was Wade Phillips and his two year stint back in 1993 and 1994. He went 9-7 and 7-9. Barring a major personality conflict with the owner, you have to imagine that McDaniels will get at least three years to prove himself.

So settle in to that reality all you "glass is half empty" fans and commentators. Bowlen has made it clear that McDaniels is his man. And McDaniels has made it abundantly clear that he is THE MAN.

The bulldozer has flattened the old house. Brick by brick, the new house is rising up.

It's a new era in the land of orange. Get used to it.

herreport.com/articles/204445-denver-broncos-officially-rebuilding[/url]




Elevation inc's comments

Well its hard to argue with this if you look at it objectively in some aspects, but at the same time, the results on the field will speak for themselves. I dont wanna just see how a team responds in TC, i wanna see a team that follows MCD when they are down by 10 in the fourth quater with with 4 minutes to play at Home. We win things like that then you know the players are really buying into MCD. there has been good and bad this offseason.

However stating that we wil be great or horrible at this juncture is unfounded, its all speculation.

hopefully its a good season, but it most certainly isnt guarenteed!

decent article though:salute:

Lonestar
06-23-2009, 02:56 AM
I think whether we win or maybe still lose, is not the issue, but the past few years and in particular the last three games this team folded..

If they do not lose it by more than ten and are still fighting when the fat lady sings I'm OK with it..

I just do not want to see anymore blow outs and NEVER at home..

JKcatch724
06-23-2009, 03:48 AM
I disagree I don't think McD is aiming to rebuild at all. He has clearly stated he wants to win NOW, and I think the free agent class and the draft has proven that.

SR
06-23-2009, 03:57 AM
I like the intent of the article and I agree with it to an extent, but the results are yet to be seen.

Elevation inc
06-23-2009, 03:58 AM
I think whether we win or maybe still lose, is not the issue, but the past few years and in particular the last three games this team folded..

If they do not lose it by more than ten and are still fighting when the fat lady sings I'm OK with it..

I just do not want to see anymore blow outs and NEVER at home..



thats the truth right there, im pretty chill right now about everything, because i do feel even in losses we will be competitive, i do not expect to see anymore blowout losses.....

NameUsedBefore
06-23-2009, 04:12 AM
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Nobody ever said this was a team needing implosion when McDaniels took the job.

After all, what is McDaniels rebuilding here? The team he inherited, or the one he destroyed?

Elevation inc
06-23-2009, 04:21 AM
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Nobody ever said this was a team needing implosion when McDaniels took the job.

After all, what is McDaniels rebuilding here? The team he inherited, or the one he destroyed?

he is rebuilding a team that was unmotivated, uninspired, and outphysicaled in just about every game.

We performed the worst folding job out of any NFL team in a very long time, is it really hard for people to understand why we made changes, we have been mediocre since 2005.

now does this mean he will succede??? only time will answer that, but chnages were needed in a very bad way......

NameUsedBefore
06-23-2009, 04:35 AM
Well, when McDaniels took the job did the offense need fixing?


Now ask yourself, does it now?

WARHORSE
06-23-2009, 04:49 AM
I dont think we're in a rebuilding year.....heck.......if youre in it to rebuild, I think youre in the wrong business.

We spent over 100 mil in free agency.....and are about to spend a heckuva lot more with two first rounders and three second rounders to sign. Thats not rebuilding, that reloading.

We've gotten better.

If Marshall plays.........which he will.........then I think that this years offense is, and is going to play better than last years.

No, we wont see Cutler throwing the rock all over the place, but instead, we're going to see a smashmouth football team that will sustain drives, and punch it into the endzone with increasing frequency throughout the year.

I think the offense will score more, but will not be as flashy without the gunslinger.

Hillis, Marshall, Stokes, Gaffney, Graham, Royal and Scheff are all going to play better this year.........add to that mix Knowshon, Buck, Jordan and perhaps a surprise playmaker in the slot in Mckinley.

I would venture to say without a doubt, that our special teams units will be head and shoulders above better, and I'll be shocked if I see otherwise.

And lastly, for the defense........we have heady.......smart......proven.......reliable players in an entirely new secondary, along with a new front seven that will scheme their way into the opposing backfield with new looks, and new attitude of attack, and players that will flourish with the new system.


We do not have a rookie taking over for Cutler, but a veteran who is willing to function under fire, and in this offense I think that goes a loooooong way.


We better not think we're rebuilding when we traded away our first rounder in next years draft.

I wanna at least see a pick at 22 or above going to Seattle.



That would be heaven...............:beer:

Elevation inc
06-23-2009, 05:18 AM
Well, when McDaniels took the job did the offense need fixing?


Now ask yourself, does it now?

um yeah when your middle of the pack in scoring and your OC is incompetent, and your head coach wants slowik to come back then yes BIG changes needed to happen and fast.

our OC bates needed to go for sure, after shanny and bates canning im sure cutler was pretty pissy, and helped the whole MCD saga out....

our run game got ten times better, our o-line and recivers stayed the same, our TE's got upgraded.....our system and the way we do things changed....

i mean we are gonna run to set-up the pass, its not diffucult to understand that and its a good thing seeing as that formula worked for the last 2 SB champions......

there is still alot of unkowns and i am not wearing orange colored glasses, but outsdie of cutler big changes needed to happen on offense especially with our run game, OC, red zone offense and philosophy.....

Elevation inc
06-23-2009, 05:20 AM
um yeah when your middle of the pack in scoring and your OC is incompetent, and your head coach wants slowik to come back then yes BIG changes needed to happen and fast.

our OC bates needed to go for sure, after shanny and bates canning im sure cutler was pretty pissy, and helped the whole MCD saga out....

our run game got ten times better, our o-line and recivers stayed the same, our TE's got upgraded.....our system and the way we do things changed....

i mean we are gonna run to set-up the pass, its not diffucult to understand that and its a good thing seeing as that formula worked for the last 2 SB champions......

there is still alot of unkowns and i am not wearing orange colored glasses, but outsdie of cutler big changes needed to happen on offense especially with our run game, OC, red zone offense and philosophy.....


unless NUB......you think selvin young, jay cutler, jeremy bates, throwing 4 consectuive times in every redzone possesion, and abandoning the run completely are a good reason for optimisim.....becasue thats exactly what we were looking forward to.....

Elevation inc
06-23-2009, 05:23 AM
I dont think we're in a rebuilding year.....heck.......if youre in it to rebuild, I think youre in the wrong business.

We spent over 100 mil in free agency.....and are about to spend a heckuva lot more with two first rounders and three second rounders to sign. Thats not rebuilding, that reloading.

We've gotten better.

If Marshall plays.........which he will.........then I think that this years offense is, and is going to play better than last years.

No, we wont see Cutler throwing the rock all over the place, but instead, we're going to see a smashmouth football team that will sustain drives, and punch it into the endzone with increasing frequency throughout the year.

I think the offense will score more, but will not be as flashy without the gunslinger.

Hillis, Marshall, Stokes, Gaffney, Graham, Royal and Scheff are all going to play better this year.........add to that mix Knowshon, Buck, Jordan and perhaps a surprise playmaker in the slot in Mckinley.

I would venture to say without a doubt, that our special teams units will be head and shoulders above better, and I'll be shocked if I see otherwise.

And lastly, for the defense........we have heady.......smart......proven.......reliable players in an entirely new secondary, along with a new front seven that will scheme their way into the opposing backfield with new looks, and new attitude of attack, and players that will flourish with the new system.


We do not have a rookie taking over for Cutler, but a veteran who is willing to function under fire, and in this offense I think that goes a loooooong way.


We better not think we're rebuilding when we traded away our first rounder in next years draft.

I wanna at least see a pick at 22 or above going to Seattle.



That would be heaven...............:beer:


we are retooling players yes, but the rebuilding theme comes from a new philosophy and new schemes....in my eyes a good thing.....

Dirk
06-23-2009, 05:49 AM
I think it is a mix of things. Some rebuilding (defense), some upgrading (ST and defense) some staying pat (offensive line) and some "oops" moves (Cutty).

The article to me was a way to get the fans back on the band wagon.

I agree with some of the article and disagree with other parts of it.

Any way you look at it, they need to put a winning team on the field, or at least a competative one this year and most will be happy.

CoachChaz
06-23-2009, 06:50 AM
I think the expectation of having a winning team on the field this year is a bit extreme. We haven't had a good team in a few years and when you make changes to head in a different direction, they typically arent going to happen overnight or even in one season. It's just ridiculous to think a defense can be completely upgraded in one off-season when the options at some positions of need simply arent there.

I do foresee significant improvements in some areas...namely the redzone. Anyone with half a football brain knows you HAVE to run the ball in the redzone. Regardless of who was in the backfield in the last few seasons...Shanny simply strayed from that. I also expect improvements on ST and in the passing game. Gone are the days of highlight reel 70 yard lasers. But so are the days of forcing a ball into triple coverage. The passing game will be more efficient and more effective with a smarter QB in there.

The defense will be shaky, but turning a mediocre team into a SB team in one off-season isnt feasible. Within 2 years this team will be a solid contender again. We just have to weather the storm in order to get to the light.

Den21vsBal19
06-23-2009, 06:55 AM
Well, when McDaniels took the job did the offense need fixing?

YES!!!!!

The offense was a study in contrasts. We could rack up yardage for fun, yet be mediocre at putting points on the board. We could span the field in an instant, yet led the league in drives of under 2 minutes.

Something wasn't right, not as blatant as the D, but we had our offensive woes as well..................

Tned
06-23-2009, 07:27 AM
I disagree I don't think McD is aiming to rebuild at all. He has clearly stated he wants to win NOW, and I think the free agent class and the draft has proven that.

Based on his talk and moves, I think he and Bowlen expect to compete immediately. I think with the schedule this year, that is going to be tough, but that is what McDaniels says will happen.

As to tearing it down and 'rebuilding'. While on defense, I think McD can get a "rebuilding pass" and if it takes several years to get the D turned around, I think people would understand. Considering the offense only needed a little consistancy and maybe more creative play calling in the red zone to be among the best in the league, a rebulding phase on offense would not be acceptable.

If he doesn't have a top 5 offense, and have the team go as far as they can dragged down by the defense, then that will be on McD.

Dirk
06-23-2009, 07:37 AM
I think it is going to be quite difficult to get this offense to a top 5 offense this year. Too many changes have taken place and a whole new scheme and philosophy puts this team I think at least a year out from being that good.

I am hoping that it will be a top 5 though! :D

Tned
06-23-2009, 07:53 AM
I think it is going to be quite difficult to get this offense to a top 5 offense this year. Too many changes have taken place and a whole new scheme and philosophy puts this team I think at least a year out from being that good.

I am hoping that it will be a top 5 though! :D

I agree, I just meant based on where we were last year, which included putting 7 RB's on IR, anything less than that will be a step back that wasn't necessary.

It's all history now, but I don't think McD can be given the "team needed to be rebuilt" free pass on offense. For instance, he could have kept Cutler, which in and of itself, might have foresstalled the Marshall thing (hard to say for sure), kept Bates, and then he and Bates worked on a hybrid offense to start moving to McD's scheme, but still using some ZBS and things that the Broncos were also doing well.

Basically, improve on what they were already doing well, while tearing down and rebuilding the defense.

Whether he wanted from the beginning to drive Cutler out, or he really thought he would land Cassel, or he just didn't invision the fallout if the trade attempt became public, etc., it doesn't really matter. Bottom line is he started with one of the best O-lines in football, one of the best young QBs and one of the best young WRs (complimented by a WR coming off a great rookie season).

Therefore, he simply can't be given a "rebuilding" free pass on offense.

NightTrainLayne
06-23-2009, 10:09 AM
I agree, I just meant based on where we were last year, which included putting 7 RB's on IR, anything less than that will be a step back that wasn't necessary.

It's all history now, but I don't think McD can be given the "team needed to be rebuilt" free pass on offense. For instance, he could have kept Cutler, which in and of itself, might have foresstalled the Marshall thing (hard to say for sure), kept Bates, and then he and Bates worked on a hybrid offense to start moving to McD's scheme, but still using some ZBS and things that the Broncos were also doing well.

Basically, improve on what they were already doing well, while tearing down and rebuilding the defense.



He COULD have done those things, but anybody worth their salt isn't going to come into a situation like that and compromise what they believe to be the best way to do things.

Bates/Cutler/Shanahan basically admitted last season that they had more or less attempted to copy the Patriots offense in the passing game because they saw how much success the Patriots had, and felt that they had personell that could pull it off.

Why try and form a "hybrid" between a copy and the real deal?

Shanny and Bates tried to copy the offense McDaniels was running and guess what? They didn't even come close to running it as well when you look at the score-board.

Why on earth would McDaniels come in and water down his ideas just trying to appease the guy who copied him?

If McDaniels had come in and compromised just to keep Bates and Cutler happy (and whoever else) it would be prima facie evidence that he didn't believe in his own system.

Bates and Shanny tried to make a "hybrid" of Shanny's and McD's offense, and it was moderately successful. But there is a reason that they were copying McD's offense to start with, and it has little to do with young master Bate's ingenuity and creativity.

Tned
06-23-2009, 10:30 AM
He COULD have done those things, but anybody worth their salt isn't going to come into a situation like that and compromise what they believe to be the best way to do things.

Bates/Cutler/Shanahan basically admitted last season that they had more or less attempted to copy the Patriots offense in the passing game because they saw how much success the Patriots had, and felt that they had personell that could pull it off.

Why try and form a "hybrid" between a copy and the real deal?

Shanny and Bates tried to copy the offense McDaniels was running and guess what? They didn't even come close to running it as well when you look at the score-board.

Why on earth would McDaniels come in and water down his ideas just trying to appease the guy who copied him?

If McDaniels had come in and compromised just to keep Bates and Cutler happy (and whoever else) it would be prima facie evidence that he didn't believe in his own system.

Bates and Shanny tried to make a "hybrid" of Shanny's and McD's offense, and it was moderately successful. But there is a reason that they were copying McD's offense to start with, and it has little to do with young master Bate's ingenuity and creativity.

I don't mean doing anything to "keep anyone happy" (other than maybe not trying to trade for another QB), but more meant that there were things that clearly worked, and even McDaniels has talked about keeping some of the ZBS that has been so effective to the Broncos.

Either way, my main point is that I can't see giving him a free pass on offense. The offense didn't need to be blown up and rebuilt from the ground up, so therefore it needs to be at least as good as, if not better than, last year, IMO.

HORSEPOWER 56
06-23-2009, 11:00 AM
YES!!!!!

The offense was a study in contrasts. We could rack up yardage for fun, yet be mediocre at putting points on the board. We could span the field in an instant, yet led the league in drives of under 2 minutes.

Something wasn't right, not as blatant as the D, but we had our offensive woes as well..................

Even though we weren't the top scoring offense in the league, our offense put up more than enough points to win more than 8 games and rarely was kept near scoreless. If your offense has to average 30 points just to be close to winning, isn't that a bigger problem? Plenty of teams stall out in the red zone and have to kick FGs. Pittsburgh and Tennessee are the prototype for that, but both teams won their divisions and made the playoffs. Our offense wasn't to blame for 95% of our losses. The NE game (maybe the 1st KC game, too but we were in that one to the end) is about the only one i can think of in which the offense turned the ball over so many times that it was unrecoverable. Our defense stunk. had it not been for the offense being so dangerous and having the ability to score quickly, we would've gone 0-16 right along with Detroit.

topscribe
06-23-2009, 11:10 AM
YES!!!!!

The offense was a study in contrasts. We could rack up yardage for fun, yet be mediocre at putting points on the board. We could span the field in an instant, yet led the league in drives of under 2 minutes.

Something wasn't right, not as blatant as the D, but we had our offensive woes as well..................

When McDaniels began to dismantle portions of the offense, I was incensed.

Now, I understand . . .

-----

Den21vsBal19
06-23-2009, 11:13 AM
Even though we weren't the top scoring offense in the league, our offense put up more than enough points to win more than 8 games and rarely was kept near scoreless. If your offense has to average 30 points just to be close to winning, isn't that a bigger problem? Plenty of teams stall out in the red zone and have to kick FGs. Pittsburgh and Tennessee are the prototype for that, but both teams won their divisions and made the playoffs. Our offense wasn't to blame for 95% of our losses. The NE game (maybe the 1st KC game, too but we were in that one to the end) is about the only one i can think of in which the offense turned the ball over so many times that it was unrecoverable. Our defense stunk. had it not been for the offense being so dangerous and having the ability to score quickly, we would've gone 0-16 right along with Detroit.
16th in points scored (23.1 points, not 30) would suggest that we got exactly what we deserved, mid table mediocrity...............

19, 17, 7, 17, 10, 10, 23, 21

I'd say that there were three games were the O stank as bad as the D did :whoknows:

CoachChaz
06-23-2009, 11:16 AM
16th in points scored (23.1 points, not 30) would suggest that we got exactly what we deserved, mid table mediocrity...............

19, 17, 7, 17, 10, 10, 23, 21

I'd say that there were three games were the O stank as bad as the D did :whoknows:

Not that anything under 20 is something to brag about

weazel
06-23-2009, 11:17 AM
What the hell does a part time writer know about managing a multi-million dollar operation? LMAO, this article looks like it was written by a clown.

Yes, come in hard and strict, then loosen up! Coming in and getting in a fight with the future of your franchise is not coming in hard and strict, it's coming in as an arrogant, mindless fool.

Oh well, this has been talked about far too long, I'm not going to keep beating a dead horse.

broncofanatic1987
06-23-2009, 12:01 PM
I disagree I don't think McD is aiming to rebuild at all. He has clearly stated he wants to win NOW, and I think the free agent class and the draft has proven that.

I think he's rebuilding with the intent to win now. I think that's the reason for the FA signings.

I think the draft is about McDaniels following what he learned while he was with the Patsies. That, by it's nature, is designed to help the team win right now by drafting players that have a real chance to contribute right away.

Tned
06-23-2009, 12:20 PM
I think he's rebuilding with the intent to win now. I think that's the reason for the FA signings.

I think the draft is about McDaniels following what he learned while he was with the Patsies. That, by it's nature, is designed to help the team win right now by drafting players that have a real chance to contribute right away.

That sounds about right. He seems to have a combo best player available/position of need philosophy on the draft.

broncofanatic1987
06-23-2009, 12:54 PM
I agree, I just meant based on where we were last year, which included putting 7 RB's on IR, anything less than that will be a step back that wasn't necessary.

It's all history now, but I don't think McD can be given the "team needed to be rebuilt" free pass on offense. For instance, he could have kept Cutler, which in and of itself, might have foresstalled the Marshall thing (hard to say for sure), kept Bates, and then he and Bates worked on a hybrid offense to start moving to McD's scheme, but still using some ZBS and things that the Broncos were also doing well.

Basically, improve on what they were already doing well, while tearing down and rebuilding the defense.

Whether he wanted from the beginning to drive Cutler out, or he really thought he would land Cassel, or he just didn't invision the fallout if the trade attempt became public, etc., it doesn't really matter. Bottom line is he started with one of the best O-lines in football, one of the best young QBs and one of the best young WRs (complimented by a WR coming off a great rookie season).

Therefore, he simply can't be given a "rebuilding" free pass on offense.

I think McDaniels gets too much blame for the changes on offense. Cutler was given every opportunity to remain a Bronco and he chose not to reconcile his differences. That forced Pat Bowlen, not McDaniels, to make a decision. Pat Bowlen, not Josh McDaniels, decided to trade Cutler. The quarterback position is the only significant change in personnel on the offense that resulted in a perceived downgrade, so far anyway.

It was obvious from the beginning that the system was going to change.

It was also obvious that there were going to be changes in the coaching staff. Once McDaniels came out and said that he was going to be calling plays, it was obvious that Jeremy Bates was going to be gone.

McDaniels has already stated that he will be incorporating the ZBS into what he wants to do on offense. I don't think his plan was ever to strictly follow the Patsies playbook. He seems to be adjusting to the talent he has on the team. He seems pretty high on Hillis and Scheffler. The Patsies didn't exactly feature a fullback and McDaniels has even stated that he's never had a tight end with Scheffler's capabilities. I think those are two players that are going to be contributing to the offense that most people thought might become irrelevant because of what they perceived to be true about the Patsies' offense.

When it comes to getting a free pass, I think a first year coach always gets a free pass from a good owner, unless there are extenuating circumstances. I don't think those circumstances exist in McDaniels' case, at least not yet. Since it's unfair to assume that the offense would have been as productive in yardage as it was last year, had Shanahan, Bates, and Cutler still been around, you can't just say that McDaniels doesn't get a free pass if the offense isn't as good as or better than last year. It's not too often that teams repeat or improve on a #2 ranking in overall offense. Since that ranking is based on yardage, I don't think it's a fair measuring stick. I think the true measuring stick is point production. If the offense improves it's point production, then it will have improved over last year. Even if it doesn't, there will be other factors that determine whether McDaniels gets a free pass or not.

NameUsedBefore
06-23-2009, 03:26 PM
YES!!!!!

The offense was a study in contrasts. We could rack up yardage for fun, yet be mediocre at putting points on the board. We could span the field in an instant, yet led the league in drives of under 2 minutes.

Something wasn't right, not as blatant as the D, but we had our offensive woes as well..................


I'm not saying the Broncos were the Colts here, but they certainly weren't in some kind of offensive tailspin. They played without a complimentary defense and ran through a number of running-backs. They still played well and there was potential there for greatness.

What was it that the Broncos needed when looking for a coach? Someone to fix the defense. Spags was popular because of this. Give the offense some turnovers to play with and not the worst field position in the league, maybe a running-back or two who don't get injured, and we'll see how they do.

Now what do the Broncos have to do? Well besides the fact the defensive woes haven't been fixed (anyone care to tell me how switching to a 3-4 and not knowing who those 3 are going to be makes for optimism?), they failed at management and lost their star QB and potentially one of the great up and comers. Now we're on the verge of losing our star WR.

It's a **** up. What else could it be? Who really thought when Shanahan was fired that, Okay, now we just need to dump Cutler and maybe even Marshall and we'll fix these offensive problems right up. We will..... worry about the defense later.

Requiem / The Dagda
06-23-2009, 03:31 PM
We addressed the defense with four of our first five selections. Pretty sound if you ask me, and while they didn't draft front-seven player outside Ayers, the guys we got at UDFA have 3-4 experience and can come in and compete against the players with schematic ambiguity we have. Moreover, as mentioned, the offense put up yards, but didn't put up many points. Outside losing a franchise signal caller in Jay; I'm pretty happy with how this off-season has went.

Den21vsBal19
06-23-2009, 07:02 PM
Not that anything under 20 is something to brag about
I was being.......................generous ;)

SmilinAssasSin27
06-23-2009, 07:26 PM
1-One of the first thing we are taught in delaing w/ the inmates is that it is MUCH, MUCH easier to go in hard and soften up then start soft and try to get tougher. I have no issue w/ what McD is doing w/ what felt was a complcent, even spolied, lockerroom.

2-I truly believe the O won't take a step back. It WILL be different, but I think it should be less fun to watch, but more effective. I think the turnovers will be reduced. I think our red zone efficiency will be improved w/ a legit run threat and another stud blocking TE...whose hand may surprise some folks.

3-I still worry about the D, but not as much as some here. Of the players that are no longer here from 08, how many have signed elsewhere? Bly. Anyone else? This tells me our talent level was worse than terrible. The defensive talent is improved via the FAs we brought in, the rooks we drafted and the shiftiong of some players who are better suited elsewhere.

4-Wse've been bitching about the special teams for 5 years now. I'm giddy about the prospects of them being even average.

5-All that being said, I doubt we win more than 7 or 8 games in 2009...but we will break out in 2010.

SmilinAssasSin27
06-23-2009, 07:27 PM
I think it is going to be quite difficult to get this offense to a top 5 offense this year. Too many changes have taken place and a whole new scheme and philosophy puts this team I think at least a year out from being that good.

I am hoping that it will be a top 5 though! :D

Screw yardage rankings. That didn't help us last year. I want ball control that takes pressure off of the D and efficiancy when we do get inside the 20.

NameUsedBefore
06-23-2009, 09:14 PM
One of the first thing we are taught in delaing w/ the inmates is that it is MUCH, MUCH easier to go in hard and soften up then start soft and try to get tougher.

Whoa. I misread this.