PDA

View Full Version : Peter King's MMQB



Pages : [1] 2

Mike
08-24-2009, 10:05 AM
Notes regarding Denver in his MMQB...

The Brandon Marshall Story Will Not Be a Jay Cutler Rerun

In the category of "Strange Training Camp Interviews,'' I bring you mine with Brandon Marshall in Denver the other day.

Me: "Can you be happy here long-term?''

Marshall: "I can be happy playing football.''

Me: "Here?''

Marshall: "I can be happy playing football.'' (Wide smile.)

Me: "How do you like Josh McDaniels and his offense?''

Marshall: "I don't know too much about either.''

Me: "Can you be productive even if you're not happy?''

Marshall: "I'm going to be productive wherever I am. Somewhere.''

Me: "You're never like this. Come on. Tell me something.''

Marshall: (Wide smile. No comment.)

Marshall wants out of Denver, and he wants out even more now that he's been told he won't get either a trade or a new contract with the team. I told him he had to know there's no way the Broncos will deal him after the Jay Cutler debacle, when Cutler shot himself out of town. "Really?'' he said, smiling. Yes. Really. Unless the people I trust in the building are lying or don't have the juice I think they have, Marshall, productive or unproductive, will stay in Denver all season.

I say the same thing about Marshall that I said about Cutler back in March: The match with McDaniels would be good for his career. Malingering for a year will not be good for his career. It'd reinforce what many teams in the league now think of Marshall -- that he's selfish with a troubled résumé off the field. But despite his pasted-on smile, Marshall didn't seem at all happy, or very willing to play ball with McDaniels.

Marshall did say one revealing thing, when I asked him about whether he thought the team could win with the current coaches and players, and without Mike Shanahan and Cutler. "Did we win with them?'' he said. "We didn't win, at least win a playoff game, since I've been here.''

He's right. Denver was 24-24 with Marshall, Cutler and Shanahan keying the offense. Maybe Marshall thinks he's got no chance to win with the Broncos, or no chance to get paid. But he ought to be smart enough to realize the majority of these stories have bad endings, and just because Cutler got what he wanted doesn't mean he'll get what he wants. The fact that Cutler did get what he wanted, in fact, is the exact reason why Marshall won't get his way.

Whatever, there was a weird pall hanging over the Denver camp when I was there a week ago. A smaller-than-usual Monday crowd at camp was so subdued I thought I was in church. McDaniels needs something good to happen to him, and soon.


7. I think I'd like to rip Kyle Orton for the silly left-handed interception, but when you're going for it on fourth down, and it's a do-or-die play, and it doesn't matter if the throw is into the third row of the bleachers or into a defender's hands, I can't fault him much for making a throw like that. Orton (18 of 26, 182 yards) needed to play as much as he did. He made a nice fade throw to Brandon Stokley for a touchdown, didn't take a sack, and looked in control.


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/peter_king/08/23/mmqb/index.html

claymore
08-24-2009, 10:16 AM
I wonder why we treat free agents better than the guys we draft.

MOtorboat
08-24-2009, 10:17 AM
I wonder why we treat free agents better than the guys we draft.

Because the free agents learn the playbook, show up at practice, don't whine, don't ask to be traded and don't pout.

The irony of this whole stupid thing is that he would get paid if he just tried. He was exonerated of the charges in Atlanta and if he would just play...he'd get paid...

scott.475
08-24-2009, 10:18 AM
I know a lot of comparisons have been made to TO, but really, a more fitting comparison should be to the Randy Moss of old, even if we keep and field him, I see him taking plays off. I wanted to keep the little punk early in this drama, but I am not convinced he would even try playing well for us, time to send the little punk away.

NightTrainLayne
08-24-2009, 10:24 AM
Can't argue his analysis there.

Don't like the sound of the "strange pall". But I think we're all in that same boat.

Shep
08-24-2009, 10:31 AM
I CAN fault Orton for the left-handed toss. Keep the ball get as many yards as you can and back them up against their endzone. Don't give them the 20. Trade Marshall before his stock drops so far that we can't get rid of him.

NightTrainLayne
08-24-2009, 10:33 AM
I CAN fault Orton for the left-handed toss. Keep the ball get as many yards as you can and back them up against their endzone. Don't give them the 20. Trade Marshall before his stock drops so far that we can't get rid of him.

I think we're too late.

Shep
08-24-2009, 10:35 AM
I think we're too late.

I would have to agree, but there's always the Raiders.

topscribe
08-24-2009, 10:52 AM
I just wonder how Marshall thinks he is going to improve his perceived worth by
sandbagging and refusing to perform? It doesn't seem he's being too bright here.
With the image he is creating, neither the Broncos nor anyone else is going to
want to pay him what he wants for quite a while.

-----

broncohead
08-24-2009, 11:08 AM
I just wonder how Marshall thinks he is going to improve his perceived worth by
sandbagging and refusing to perform? It doesn't seem he's being too bright here.
With the image he is creating, neither the Broncos nor anyone else is going to
want to pay him what he wants for quite a while.

-----

Being bright isn't Marshalls strong suite. If he would just put in work for 1 season and put up numbers like he did the last 2 he would get a big deal somewhere. He also needs to realize he is the player not the coach. On the flip side McD isn't handling this well imo. They both have an ego and being in the leadship role McD needs to be the bigger man. Because we are a better team with Marshall on the field then off and McD job is to win games.

Ravage!!!
08-24-2009, 11:28 AM
sounds (reads) to me that Marshall is just gettign some very poor advice from his agent. Sounds as though he believes he's going to be traded, and that HAS to be coming from the guy that talking with the coaches/owner/GM. I"m just guessing of course, but I'm guessing that Marshall's agent is telling him things that he wants to hear, and isn't being upfront to him about the truth of this situation.

CoachChaz
08-24-2009, 11:50 AM
The only thing he is going to accomplish is alienating his teammates. I'd really like to see him and Dawkins on the practice field right now and have Marshall run a quick slant right at Dawk.

broncofanatic1987
08-24-2009, 12:12 PM
Being bright isn't Marshalls strong suite. If he would just put in work for 1 season and put up numbers like he did the last 2 he would get a big deal somewhere. He also needs to realize he is the player not the coach. On the flip side McD isn't handling this well imo. They both have an ego and being in the leadship role McD needs to be the bigger man. Because we are a better team with Marshall on the field then off and McD job is to win games.

So Marshall is supposed to get a big contract so McDaniels can prove he's the bigger man? I don't think that's how it works.

How is McDaniels supposed to be convinced that the team is better with Marshall when Marshall has admitted that he doesn't know the play book and hasn't been studying? Sooner or later, probably sooner, Marshall's physical talent isn't going to be enough to get by. He's not going to be targeted 174 times, drop more passes than just about everyone else, and still catch 100+ balls like he did last year.

The Broncos would be smart to force Marshall to get his act together. His agent will eventually have to convince him that his only option is to make an effort and produce on the field. That's the only thing that will give Marshall any kind of leverage. Right now, he has none. What he did the last two years was under a different coach in a different system. He has done nothing to prove that he will be productive in the new offense with a new coach and new quarterback.

CoachChaz
08-24-2009, 12:14 PM
So Marshall is supposed to get a big contract so McDaniels can prove he's the bigger man? I don't think that's how it works.

How is McDaniels supposed to be convinced that the team is better with Marshall when Marshall has admitted that he doesn't know the play book and hasn't been studying? Sooner or later, probably sooner, Marshall's physical talent isn't going to be enough to get by. He's not going to be targeted 174 times, drop more passes than just about everyone else, and still catch 100+ balls like he did last year.

The Broncos would be smart to force Marshall to get his act together. His agent will eventually have to convince him that his only option is to make an effort and produce on the field. That's the only thing that will give Marshall any kind of leverage. Right now, he has none. What he did the last two years was under a different coach in a different system. He has done nothing to prove that he will be productive in the new offense with a new coach and new quarterback.

At his current rate, he'll be lucky to so 50 passes this year.

Tned
08-24-2009, 12:22 PM
So Marshall is supposed to get a big contract so McDaniels can prove he's the bigger man? I don't think that's how it works.

How is McDaniels supposed to be convinced that the team is better with Marshall when Marshall has admitted that he doesn't know the play book and hasn't been studying? Sooner or later, probably sooner, Marshall's physical talent isn't going to be enough to get by. He's not going to be targeted 174 times, drop more passes than just about everyone else, and still catch 100+ balls like he did last year.

The Broncos would be smart to force Marshall to get his act together. His agent will eventually have to convince him that his only option is to make an effort and produce on the field. That's the only thing that will give Marshall any kind of leverage. Right now, he has none. What he did the last two years was under a different coach in a different system. He has done nothing to prove that he will be productive in the new offense with a new coach and new quarterback.

McDaniels would be the bigger man by not punishing Marshall by putting him on the scout team, which is how it looks right now.

As some reporters have speculated, it is impossible to know whether or not Marshall really doesn't know the playbook, or if this is a game, because McDaniels relegated him to the scout team after his agent asked for a renegotiation and then a trade.

He knew the play book well enough to run with the 2nd and 1st unit on Sunday and Monday, then his agent meets with the front office, and all of a sudden he is running as a scout gunner and safety and "doesn't know the playbook".

Even if he doesn't know the playbook enough, which is a big "if", how is running on the scout team, running other teams' plays going to help him get ready?

The story, as it is being presented by both sides, just doesn't make sense.

Ravage!!!
08-24-2009, 12:31 PM
Again... although we've seen some interesting perspectives from players, I think we are seeing just as much immaturity from our coach. A young guy that is trying VERY VERY hard to PUSH his authority. We can go back and forth on whether you think thats good or bad.... but I'll say this. I would much rather WIN a Super Bowl with snot-nosed, grouchy, thug, bratty, baby, whiny, arrogant, GOOD players than sit at home with " nice guys."

The really good coaches (leaders), learn how to get along and DEAL with all kinds of personalities as opposed to simply trying to MAKE them all the same kind of person by demanding this and that.

These guys on the football field aren't "old" mature people most of the time. They are young, brash, out of college with women and money, and they are arrogant. WE were young and arrogant without the money and the fame that they had at that time. We can't simply expect a big paycheck to change who/what they are. That takes time. In the meantime, we need a leader that can deal with all kinds.

Right now, we have to deal with the immaturity of our young players, and the immaturity of our coach. Thats a tough combo.

CoachChaz
08-24-2009, 12:35 PM
...and if Marshall is allowed to run with the first team at a reduced speed and self proclaimed limited knowledge of the playbook...what kind of example does that set? The young guys will think they can run all over him and the vets will be pissed to see someone doesnt have to fight to keep a spot. Right now, the vets are on McD's side. Call me crazy, but it says more to me about McD as a coach when Bailey, Dawkins and Stokley are supporting him than it does to hear Cutler and/or marshall complain about him

Lonestar
08-24-2009, 12:37 PM
I just wonder how Marshall thinks he is going to improve his perceived worth by
sandbagging and refusing to perform? It doesn't seem he's being too bright here.With the image he is creating, neither the Broncos nor anyone else is going to
want to pay him what he wants for quite a while.

-----


just exactly when has he showed intelligence?

Tned
08-24-2009, 12:40 PM
...and if Marshall is allowed to run with the first team at a reduced speed and self proclaimed limited knowledge of the playbook...what kind of example does that set? The young guys will think they can run all over him and the vets will be pissed to see someone doesnt have to fight to keep a spot. Right now, the vets are on McD's side. Call me crazy, but it says more to me about McD as a coach when Bailey, Dawkins and Stokley are supporting him than it does to hear Cutler and/or marshall complain about him

If he really doesn't know the playbook, to such an extent that he will damage the chances of the second team from progressing, then I think you are right. However, I personally think that Krieger is probably closer to the mark, that the playbook statement is simply Marshall's response to being exiled to the scout team.

The problem is that none of us know for sure, because all we are getting is tiny bits of information and that is what the player and coach want us to hear.

CoachChaz
08-24-2009, 12:41 PM
Again... although we've seen some interesting perspectives from players, I think we are seeing just as much immaturity from our coach. A young guy that is trying VERY VERY hard to PUSH his authority. We can go back and forth on whether you think thats good or bad.... but I'll say this. I would much rather WIN a Super Bowl with snot-nosed, grouchy, thug, bratty, baby, whiny, arrogant, GOOD players than sit at home with " nice guys."

The really good coaches (leaders), learn how to get along and DEAL with all kinds of personalities as opposed to simply trying to MAKE them all the same kind of person by demanding this and that.

These guys on the football field aren't "old" mature people most of the time. They are young, brash, out of college with women and money, and they are arrogant. WE were young and arrogant without the money and the fame that they had at that time. We can't simply expect a big paycheck to change who/what they are. That takes time. In the meantime, we need a leader that can deal with all kinds.

Right now, we have to deal with the immaturity of our young players, and the immaturity of our coach. Thats a tough combo.

This entire statement (especially the bolded ones) shows me one of two things. Either you've never coached anything or your limited coaching experience was with very young children. if you had ever done anything else, you'd never make a ridiculous comment like this

Lonestar
08-24-2009, 12:43 PM
...and if Marshall is allowed to run with the first team at a reduced speed and self proclaimed limited knowledge of the playbook...what kind of example does that set? The young guys will think they can run all over him and the vets will be pissed to see someone doesnt have to fight to keep a spot. Right now, the vets are on McD's side. Call me crazy, but it says more to me about McD as a coach when Bailey, Dawkins and Stokley are supporting him than it does to hear Cutler and/or marshall complain about him


not to mention those players dogging it tend to get hurt more often than not.. when your going thru the motions and not playing at game speed it gets folks hurt..

CoachChaz
08-24-2009, 12:43 PM
If he really doesn't know the playbook, to such an extent that he will damage the chances of the second team from progressing, then I think you are right. However, I personally think that Krieger is probably closer to the mark, that the playbook statement is simply Marshall's response to being exiled to the scout team.

The problem is that none of us know for sure, because all we are getting is tiny bits of information and that is what the player and coach want us to hear.

The interesting part to me is that it has seemed from day one that McD has been a big supporter of Marshall and really wants him on the field. I have a hard time believing his contract has anything to do with the coach.

But if a player continues to express that he wants out, misses time due to injury and legal issues and publicly makes a comment about no knowing the playbook (truth or not, he said it)...how can a coach trust him?

Again, this is another scenario that comes down to having ever coached athletes above the age of 15 to understand.

Tned
08-24-2009, 12:53 PM
The interesting part to me is that it has seemed from day one that McD has been a big supporter of Marshall and really wants him on the field. I have a hard time believing his contract has anything to do with the coach.

But if a player continues to express that he wants out, misses time due to injury and legal issues and publicly makes a comment about no knowing the playbook (truth or not, he said it)...how can a coach trust him?

Again, this is another scenario that comes down to having ever coached athletes above the age of 15 to understand.

Coach, I understand what you are saying, and knowing we don't have much info, here is the timeline that I am aware of:


Marshall comes to TC, I think a couple days early.
Marshall practices for the first three practices, although camp reports say he was visibly limping at times.
Marshall is injured (later we find out it is a hamstring
When McDaniels is asked about Marshall falling behind, he says it isn't a concern, because Marshall is attending all meetings and is involved in the correction phase (I assume this means they film the practices and then review and correct in meetings -- but that is an assumption, because it wasn't explained). Makes some comment about being involved mentally, even if not physically (gonig by memory here).
Marshall returns to practice last Sunday and runs with the second unit, but takes some first unit snaps.
On Monday AM, Marshall again runs with the second unit and takes some first unit snaps.
The team meets with Marshall and apologizes for the junior PR guys snafu
Marshall's agent meets with the Broncos FO, reportedly asking for a renegotiation/extension and when told no, reportedly restates their trade request.
Marshall voices displeasure to the press about the issue with the PR guy.
The next practice, Marshall is put on the scout team and is running as a gunner, and starting offense is heckling him and joking about it (I'm guessing because it doesn't happen often)
Marshall is then moved to safety on the scout team
When questioned by the media about being on the scout team, Marshall says he isn't close to knowing the playbook.
The remainder of practices last week, Marshall is only on the scout team as a WR.


When I look at that time line, along wth the coaches comments about Marshall staying up mentally, and then practicing two days with the first and second units, and right after the meeting with the agent, he is moved to scout gunner and safety, that timing just tells me there is more to the story.

silkamilkamonico
08-24-2009, 12:55 PM
This entire statement (especially the bolded ones) shows me one of two things. Either you've never coached anything or your limited coaching experience was with very young children. if you had ever done anything else, you'd never make a ridiculous comment like this

Couldn't agree with you more.

Whiny, arrogant, thug, baby, bratty players don't win superbowls. Players that take care of their business on the field, and honor their assingments do.

That's EXACTLY what Coach McDaniels is trying to install.

Lonestar
08-24-2009, 01:01 PM
Coach, I understand what you are saying, and knowing we don't have much info, here is the timeline that I am aware of:


Marshall comes to TC, I think a couple days early.
Marshall practices for the first three practices, although camp reports say he was visibly limping at times.
Marshall is injured (later we find out it is a hamstring
When McDaniels is asked about Marshall falling behind, he says it isn't a concern, because Marshall is attending all meetings and is involved in the correction phase (I assume this means they film the practices and then review and correct in meetings -- but that is an assumption, because it wasn't explained). Makes some comment about being involved mentally, even if not physically (gonig by memory here).
Marshall returns to practice last Sunday and runs with the second unit, but takes some first unit snaps.
On Monday AM, Marshall again runs with the second unit and takes some first unit snaps.
The team meets with Marshall and apologizes for the junior PR guys snafu
Marshall's agent meets with the Broncos FO, reportedly asking for a renegotiation/extension and when told no, reportedly restates their trade request.
Marshall voices displeasure to the press about the issue with the PR guy.
The next practice, Marshall is put on the scout team and is running as a gunner, and starting offense is heckling him and joking about it (I'm guessing because it doesn't happen often)
Marshall is then moved to safety on the scout team
When questioned by the media about being on the scout team, Marshall says he isn't close to knowing the playbook.
The remainder of practices last week, Marshall is only on the scout team as a WR.


When I look at that time line, along wth the coaches comments about Marshall staying up mentally, and then practicing two days with the first and second units, and right after the meeting with the agent, he is moved to scout gunner and safety, that timing just tells me there is more to the story.


and just perhaps in that meeting he admits he does not know the play book like he should or the other scenario in those film studies and classes they see that he is not running those routes like he should be and asks him what the issue is..

I suspect it is indeed the coach trying to make nice with him when asked by the reporters about his falling behind and then marshall really making no effort to indeed catch up..


Now this is just as much speculation as any one has had on here because frankly NO one knows for sure what is going on.. other than we have a talented WR that is not playing..

GEM
08-24-2009, 01:30 PM
Couldn't agree with you more.

Whiny, arrogant, thug, baby, bratty players don't win superbowls. Players that take care of their business on the field, and honor their assingments do.

That's EXACTLY what Coach McDaniels is trying to install.

Isn't it funny that most of the over the top WR's haven't gotten a Super Bowl ring. TO, Randy Moss, Ocho Cinco. Just hit me as funny as I read your post.

Ravage!!!
08-24-2009, 01:57 PM
Couldn't agree with you more.

Whiny, arrogant, thug, baby, bratty players don't win superbowls. Players that take care of their business on the field, and honor their assingments do.

That's EXACTLY what Coach McDaniels is trying to install.

Really? You've never seen and arrogant thug win a Super Bowl? YOu've never seen an player you consider to be self absorbed or whiny win a ring? You've never seen some gansta thug be on a Super Bowl winning team? You've never seen a bratty player be a star??

I could make a list if I wanted to put some effort into it.. but the name Micheal Irvin, Brett Favre, Eli Manning, Elway, Shannon Sharpe, Ray Lewis, Marvin Harrison, Bill Romanowski, Troy Aikman, Plaxico Burress, Bruce Smith, THE ENTIRE '84 Bears team.... just to name a FEW that covers all the categories given

Ravage!!!
08-24-2009, 02:03 PM
This entire statement (especially the bolded ones) shows me one of two things. Either you've never coached anything or your limited coaching experience was with very young children. if you had ever done anything else, you'd never make a ridiculous comment like this

SOrry. Those aren't words of mine, perse, but taking the words of coaches from the NFL that have been commenting on the Bronco's/McDaniels situation for months. You'll have to excuse me if I take their perspective on that over yours.

CoachChaz
08-24-2009, 02:17 PM
SOrry. Those aren't words of mine, perse, but taking the words of coaches from the NFL that have been commenting on the Bronco's/McDaniels situation for months. You'll have to excuse me if I take their perspective on that over yours.

Feel free to provide quotes in context please

Ravage!!!
08-24-2009, 02:29 PM
Feel free to provide quotes in context please

Then you will want a link, right? I don't have a link, and the interviews were on ESPN radio, and I'm not going to make up a quote in quotations when I don't have a writen out manuscript of the discussion.

But the coaches (Billick is just one of them, Schottenheimer was another) were asked what they thought of the McDaniels/Cutler problems (back when the trade had just gone through and before the draft)... and they made the same basic statements that I made above in my post. That coaches in the NFL have to get along with all kinds of players, and you can not FORCE your leadership on them as if they are kids. You can't force them to respect you, you can only FORCE them to obey your rules.. but thats not respect. These players are young, confident, and make a lot of money... more money than the coaches. Although you obviously can't treat them with baby gloves, you can't expect them to respond to brash threats.

They then used Coughlin as an Example in NY. The players were complaining a lot about Coughlin's overly demanding power trip, and his fines and over powering attitude was a cancer in the locker room. Coughlin changed, softening up, working on getting along with the players rather than treat them as if they were kids, getting a player rep to come to him and discuss player concerns... and they turned it around and won a Super Bowl.

They went on to say that although Cutler displayed immaturity in the situation, that McDaniels is the coach of this team and the immaturity he displayed was something that bothered them more. Steve Young (although obviously not a coach) said the exact same things.

CoachChaz
08-24-2009, 02:34 PM
Then you will want a link, right? I don't have a link, and the interviews were on ESPN radio, and I'm not going to make up a quote in quotations when I don't have a writen out manuscript of the discussion.

But the coaches (Billick is just one of them, Schottenheimer was another) were asked what they thought of the McDaniels/Cutler problems (back when the trade had just gone through and before the draft)... and they made the same basic statements that I made above in my post. That coaches in the NFL have to get along with all kinds of players, and you can not FORCE your leadership on them as if they are kids. You can't force them to respect you, you can only FORCE them to obey your rules.. but thats not respect. These players are young, confident, and make a lot of money... more money than the coaches. Although you obviously can't treat them with baby gloves, you can't expect them to respond to brash threats.

They then used Coughlin as an Example in NY. The players were complaining a lot about Coughlin's overly demanding power trip, and his fines and over powering attitude was a cancer in the locker room. Coughlin changed, softening up, working on getting along with the players rather than treat them as if they were kids, getting a player rep to come to him and discuss player concerns... and they turned it around and won a Super Bowl.

They went on to say that although Cutler displayed immaturity in the situation, that McDaniels is the coach of this team and the immaturity he displayed was something that bothered them more. Steve Young (although obviously not a coach) said the exact same things.

First, Coughlin has a ring...and no matter how much people think he has "softened", he is still more demanding than most coaches out there. Second, even as soft as he is now...McDaniels doesnt equate to that. Third...They are basing their comments on the same thing we all are. ASSUMPTIONS based on media reports.

If I have to choose a coach to run my team, I'm leaning more towards Coughlin than someone "soft" and player friendly like a Wade Phillips. Setting a standard for a team and holding people accountable is suddenly a problem?

Tned
08-24-2009, 02:44 PM
and just perhaps in that meeting he admits he does not know the play book like he should or the other scenario in those film studies and classes they see that he is not running those routes like he should be and asks him what the issue is..

I suspect it is indeed the coach trying to make nice with him when asked by the reporters about his falling behind and then marshall really making no effort to indeed catch up..


Now this is just as much speculation as any one has had on here because frankly NO one knows for sure what is going on.. other than we have a talented WR that is not playing..

Yes, it could be that he said, "hey, I wanna more money, now. Oh yea, I don't know the playbook". Anything is possible, but the key thing you said is this:

"frankly NO one knows for sure what is going on.. other than we have a talented WR that is not playing"

This is what it comes down to, everything we are doing is speculating based on VERY limited information. It's fine, at least we have something to talk about on the message board, but there is no way to prove A is right and B is wrong, because we simply don't know what is really going on.

Ravage!!!
08-24-2009, 02:46 PM
First, Coughlin has a ring...and no matter how much people think he has "softened", he is still more demanding than most coaches out there. Second, even as soft as he is now...McDaniels doesnt equate to that. Third...They are basing their comments on the same thing we all are. ASSUMPTIONS based on media reports.

If I have to choose a coach to run my team, I'm leaning more towards Coughlin than someone "soft" and player friendly like a Wade Phillips. Setting a standard for a team and holding people accountable is suddenly a problem?

First off.. I still dont' know what Coughlin having a ring has ANYTHING to do with these two coaches making their statements considering Billick has one and Schottenheimer is a GREAT coach. Second, you don't know what they are making their judgments on, or what their perspectives are... you only see that they disagree with you. You are making an assumption on their opinion.

Third.. Coughlin didn't have a ring, and had his top runner retire on him, BECAUSE of his attitude. He didn't have a ring until he changed. Does it have a correlation? Don't know. But I do know that it wasn't until his change that the Giants won the Super Bowl

Fourthly.. you don't know how much he softened or not. YOu are only making your basis on ASSUMPTIONS based on media reports.

I too would pick a coach like Coughlin over Phillips, but you are picking on two different sides of the spectrum.

Either way. It still comes back to my statement in which you said I "obviously haven't coached much, or nothing over kids"..... and I again will say that I will take these coach's opinions first over either of ours as far as having a true perspective on this.

CoachChaz
08-24-2009, 02:49 PM
You win. I have no energy for those that believe everything they read as opposed to facts and experience.

Congratulations

Ravage!!!
08-24-2009, 02:52 PM
You win. I have no energy for those that believe everything they read as opposed to facts and experience.

Congratulations

wow.. I didn't realize you coached in the NFL. My apologies. Strange how I would take someone's opinion that I value their experience more than yours, huh?

NightTrainLayne
08-24-2009, 02:55 PM
Alright. Let's move back away from the personal comments and get back on topic.

:focus:

CoachChaz
08-24-2009, 03:02 PM
wow.. I didn't realize you coached in the NFL. My apologies. Strange how I would take someone's opinion that I value their experience more than yours, huh?

Yeah, because coaching in the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, etc. is the ONLY way you'll ever deal with coaching or supervising a group with mutiple personalities.

Feel free to join us on Earth. It's supposedly getting a little warmer down here, but pverall, it's not too bad

broncohead
08-24-2009, 03:03 PM
So Marshall is supposed to get a big contract so McDaniels can prove he's the bigger man? I don't think that's how it works.

I wasn't talking about contract. I was talking about the two egos. McD needs to be a coach not some guy on an ego trip.


How is McDaniels supposed to be convinced that the team is better with Marshall when Marshall has admitted that he doesn't know the play book and hasn't been studying? Sooner or later, probably sooner, Marshall's physical talent isn't going to be enough to get by. He's not going to be targeted 174 times, drop more passes than just about everyone else, and still catch 100+ balls like he did last year.

If you don't think Marshall will be productive in this offense you are blind. A team puts it's best plays on the field regardless of personal issues that coach may have with a player. Saying that Marshall should be running with at least the 2nd team to get more 1 on 1 coaching instead of scout team and special teams where there is none of that.


The Broncos would be smart to force Marshall to get his act together. His agent will eventually have to convince him that his only option is to make an effort and produce on the field. That's the only thing that will give Marshall any kind of leverage. Right now, he has none. What he did the last two years was under a different coach in a different system. He has done nothing to prove that he will be productive in the new offense with a new coach and new quarterback.

Again Marshall is a football player and will produce in any system in the NFL. He will produce in this system giving the chance. I agree he needs to pull his head out his ass but McD needs to let personal issues go and be a coach.

CoachChaz
08-24-2009, 03:08 PM
I wasn't talking about contract. I was talking about the two egos. McD needs to be a coach not some guy on an ego trip.



If you don't think Marshall will be productive in this offense you are blind. A team puts it's best plays on the field regardless of personal issues that coach may have with a player. Saying that Marshall should be running with at least the 2nd team to get more 1 on 1 coaching instead of scout team and special teams where there is none of that.



Again Marshall is a football player and will produce in any system in the NFL. He will produce in this system giving the chance. I agree he needs to pull his head out his ass but McD needs to let personal issues go and be a coach.




I must have missed where McDaniels had a personal problem with a player he's done nothing but support. I imagine McD is to blame for Vick's dog-fighting too.

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced we should have hired Spagnuolo. The way he has that Rams defense playing already is amazing!!!


:rolleyes:

broncohead
08-24-2009, 04:24 PM
I must have missed where McDaniels had a personal problem with a player he's done nothing but support. I imagine McD is to blame for Vick's dog-fighting too.

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced we should have hired Spagnuolo. The way he has that Rams defense playing already is amazing!!!


:rolleyes:

He's supporting Marshall by sticking him on the scout team D, special teams, and scout team O? It takes 2 and frankly they are both to blame.

Northman
08-24-2009, 05:18 PM
I just wonder how Marshall thinks he is going to improve his perceived worth by
sandbagging and refusing to perform? It doesn't seem he's being too bright here.
With the image he is creating, neither the Broncos nor anyone else is going to
want to pay him what he wants for quite a while.

-----

Because somewhere along the line he thinks he has the leverage that Culter had. Marshall is getting paid peanuts, it isnt hurting Denver (aside for his on the field performance) for him to sit out. Denver will struggle this year with or without Brandon. The only person its hurting is Brandon with not only the fines he could face but his future contracts. Denver can just sit on their hands and let him pout and be lazy all he wants. This article is right about one thing, this circumstance is nowhere near where the Cutler fiasco was because both players are vastly worlds apart in terms of worth right now.

Northman
08-24-2009, 05:19 PM
sounds (reads) to me that Marshall is just gettign some very poor advice from his agent. Sounds as though he believes he's going to be traded, and that HAS to be coming from the guy that talking with the coaches/owner/GM. I"m just guessing of course, but I'm guessing that Marshall's agent is telling him things that he wants to hear, and isn't being upfront to him about the truth of this situation.

Ironically, sounds a whole lot like another agent earlier this year.

Northman
08-24-2009, 05:23 PM
...and if Marshall is allowed to run with the first team at a reduced speed and self proclaimed limited knowledge of the playbook...what kind of example does that set? The young guys will think they can run all over him and the vets will be pissed to see someone doesnt have to fight to keep a spot. Right now, the vets are on McD's side. Call me crazy, but it says more to me about McD as a coach when Bailey, Dawkins and Stokley are supporting him than it does to hear Cutler and/or marshall complain about him

And thankfully, that era of allowing Denver to become a retirement home has changed back to some discipline. I remember Strahan used to cry like a bitch about the Giant's head coach working him so hard. But, he got a ring out of it so i guess it paid off eh?

Tned
08-24-2009, 06:02 PM
Because somewhere along the line he thinks he has the leverage that Culter had. Marshall is getting paid peanuts, it isnt hurting Denver (aside for his on the field performance) for him to sit out. Denver will struggle this year with or without Brandon. The only person its hurting is Brandon with not only the fines he could face but his future contracts. Denver can just sit on their hands and let him pout and be lazy all he wants. This article is right about one thing, this circumstance is nowhere near where the Cutler fiasco was because both players are vastly worlds apart in terms of worth right now.

Cutler didn't have a whole lot of leverage either, which is why so many thought the Broncos should have played hard ball rather than cave.

However, the big difference is there was a long list of teams lining up for Cutler, where with Marshall's hip injury and off-field problems, he's a much bigger risk.

MOtorboat
08-24-2009, 06:13 PM
Cutler didn't have a whole lot of leverage either, which is why so many thought the Broncos should have played hard ball rather than cave.

However, the big difference is there was a long list of teams lining up for Cutler, where with Marshall's hip injury and off-field problems, he's a much bigger risk.

I don't know, by any means...but I would imagine the two teams I've heard, Baltimore and the Jets, are low-balling the crap out of Denver with their offers.

broncohead
08-24-2009, 07:37 PM
The interesting part to me is that it has seemed from day one that McD has been a big supporter of Marshall and really wants him on the field. I have a hard time believing his contract has anything to do with the coach.

But if a player continues to express that he wants out, misses time due to injury and legal issues and publicly makes a comment about no knowing the playbook (truth or not, he said it)...how can a coach trust him?

Again, this is another scenario that comes down to having ever coached athletes above the age of 15 to understand.

I highly doubt anyone on this board understands what it's like dealing with NFL players. You cannot compare your local high school coaching expierence or even most college expierences to what it's like. Totally different.

Northman
08-24-2009, 08:18 PM
Cutler didn't have a whole lot of leverage either, which is why so many thought the Broncos should have played hard ball rather than cave.

However, the big difference is there was a long list of teams lining up for Cutler, where with Marshall's hip injury and off-field problems, he's a much bigger risk.


I think he did. Not only did he not have the off the field problems that Marshall had but his contract is much more than Brandon's. So, had Jay just sat out it would of made it far more difficult to sign other players with his salary hanging in the balance. And rather than wait for Jay's stock to fall due to his immaturity they took advantage of it before the draft to get some extra picks. Fact is, there were a lot of liars in the Cutler fiasco and it all came down to who blinked first. With Marshall, he has nothing that can hold back the team or scare them during draft time. At the end of the day Jay's leverage was his overall worth on the market which evidently to teams like the Bears was a lot.

Tned
08-24-2009, 08:36 PM
I think he did. Not only did he not have the off the field problems that Marshall had but his contract is much more than Brandon's. So, had Jay just sat out it would of made it far more difficult to sign other players with his salary hanging in the balance. And rather than wait for Jay's stock to fall due to his immaturity they took advantage of it before the draft to get some extra picks. Fact is, there were a lot of liars in the Cutler fiasco and it all came down to who blinked first. With Marshall, he has nothing that can hold back the team or scare them during draft time. At the end of the day Jay's leverage was his overall worth on the market which evidently to teams like the Bears was a lot.

Based on reports, there were a lot of teams interested.

FWIW, Jay's 2009 contract was less than Brandon's and barely more than the veteran minimum. It was a little over $1 million (cap figure about $3 million with prorated signing bonus), but by trading him, we had to escalate his prorated signing bonus (about $5.5 million give or take), so in terms of signing players and salary cap, we went from had roughly $1.5 million less salary cap by trading him vs. keeping him on the roster. In terms of real dollars, he was only costing about a million in '09.

So, I'm not questioning trading him at this point, that's done, don't need to go back there, but in terms of salary, Marshall at $2.2 million that would go away if he is traded will actually give us cap relief, where trading Jake gave us a cap hit.

Hobe
08-24-2009, 08:39 PM
I just wonder how Marshall thinks he is going to improve his perceived worth by sandbagging and refusing to perform? It doesn't seem he's being too bright here. With the image he is creating, neither the Broncos nor anyone else is going to want to pay him what he wants for quite a while.

-----
Brandon is:
* Fast
* Strong
* Tall
* has pretty good hands
* and can really YAK it up

However, I can not ever recall anyone saying anything about "bright." That what he pays his agent for. ;)

frauschieze
08-24-2009, 08:48 PM
Brandon is:
* Fast
* Strong
* Tall
* has pretty good hands
* and can really YAK it up

However, I can not ever recall anyone saying anything about "bright." That what he pays his agent for. ;)

Obviously, he is not paying his agent enough! :lol:

silkamilkamonico
08-24-2009, 08:59 PM
Really? You've never seen and arrogant thug win a Super Bowl? YOu've never seen an player you consider to be self absorbed or whiny win a ring? You've never seen some gansta thug be on a Super Bowl winning team? You've never seen a bratty player be a star??

I could make a list if I wanted to put some effort into it.. but the name Micheal Irvin, Brett Favre, Eli Manning, Elway, Shannon Sharpe, Ray Lewis, Marvin Harrison, Bill Romanowski, Troy Aikman, Plaxico Burress, Bruce Smith, THE ENTIRE '84 Bears team.... just to name a FEW that covers all the categories given

Those guys were surrounded by a core of character nucleus that took care of business.

LMAO at putting guys like Ray Lewis, John Elway, Marvin Harrison, Bruce Smith, the Entire 84 Bears team, and Brett Favre in with the "whiny bratty thugs department. Did any of those guys throw their teammates under the bus? How about holding themselves higher than an organization with the exception of Elway? How about missing offseason workouts?

The 84 bears? They had 1 "thug" on that team other than McMahon. And that was the S who held out wanting a higher contract, and therefor did not get a SuperBowl ring.


Plaxico Burress was surrounded by a core of players that gave 100% and worked as a team. Eli Manning is none of those. Eli Manning has been scrutinized his entire career, arguably the most scrutinized QB in theNFl, and perservered. LMAO at putting Eli Manning anywhere near "whiny, bratty, arrogant, thugs".

You completely reached on almost all of those names.

Lonestar
08-24-2009, 09:00 PM
Obviously, he is not listening to his agent enough! :lol:


edited for accuracy, but then his agent might be a moron also..

Tned
08-24-2009, 09:01 PM
edited for accuracy, but then his agent might be a moron also..

His agent works on commission/percentage of his contract.

Lonestar
08-24-2009, 09:03 PM
His agent works on commission/percentage of his contract.


Yes I know that and if he had a brain he would know his client has ZERO leverage.. and therefore all of these antics are doing nothing but lower his value in his next contract..

claymore
08-25-2009, 07:03 AM
Because the free agents learn the playbook, show up at practice, don't whine, don't ask to be traded and don't pout.

The irony of this whole stupid thing is that he would get paid if he just tried. He was exonerated of the charges in Atlanta and if he would just play...he'd get paid...

Javon Walker 40 million

CoachChaz
08-25-2009, 07:08 AM
I highly doubt anyone on this board understands what it's like dealing with NFL players. You cannot compare your local high school coaching expierence or even most college expierences to what it's like. Totally different.

And you know this how? I dont claim to have ever coached any in the NFL, but aside from money...what is the difference? You still have multiple personalities that you have to deal with and you will NEVER make everyone happy. The only choice is to walk in, tell the team how you run the show and they can either conform or cry.

I dont see the Bailey's and Dawkins and Williams and Clady's and Stokley's getting their panties in a bunch. Do you think all of them have the exact same personality and preferences? Not likely. but they are professional and understand how it works.

The coach that tries to make everyone happy and coddles certain players and not others is destined to fail. I'm glad McD isnt that way

broncohead
08-25-2009, 09:41 AM
And you know this how? I dont claim to have ever coached any in the NFL, but aside from money...what is the difference? You still have multiple personalities that you have to deal with and you will NEVER make everyone happy. The only choice is to walk in, tell the team how you run the show and they can either conform or cry.

I agree to an extent. Having a "my way or the highway" attittude isn't going to make a winning team.

I dont see the Bailey's and Dawkins and Williams and Clady's and Stokley's getting their panties in a bunch. Do you think all of them have the exact same personality and preferences? Not likely. but they are professional and understand how it works.

The coach that tries to make everyone happy and coddles certain players and not others is destined to fail. I'm glad McD isnt that way

I don't think there is a right way or wrong way tbh. But one thing I know is that a "my way or the highway" attittude doesn't work very often when dealing with adults even though some act like high schoolers. I'm not say McD should coddle Marshall.

CoachChaz
08-25-2009, 10:47 AM
I don't think there is a right way or wrong way tbh. But one thing I know is that a "my way or the highway" attittude doesn't work very often when dealing with adults even though some act like high schoolers. I'm not say McD should coddle Marshall.

But it is working...with every player but two. He should completely change his philosophy becasue 2 kids cant adapt? One of which we knew was a head case before we drafted him

Ravage!!!
08-25-2009, 10:50 AM
Whats the difference from coaching/dealing with people inside the NFL than outside in different business that have 'different personalities?' Tons.

FIrst.. where else do you have a business, a multi-BILLION dollar corporation, that has employees with such a HUGE variance in upbringing? Not only ethnically, but fincancially and educationally? WHat other multi-billion dollar company have some employees that grew up in the hoods of LA, to the farms of Nebraska, to the gangs of East St. Louis? You have employees that are working together, where some grew up in private schools, and others fought in inner-city public school system. Some of these 'employees' grew up in neighborhoods with gang shootings being a regular, while others grew up in neighborhoods where you could leave your doors unlocked at night. Some were sent to college for educational purposes and others simply used the game of football to get the big money. Others used the game of football to get out of their neighborhoods while some used football to finance their education.

Then.. if you want to bring in the money. Where else to you have a multi-billion dollar corporation that has employees become MULTI-MILLIONAIRES by the time they are 22-23 yrs old, and make more money than their bosses?? Not only that, but the media frenzy surrounding their every move, from the time they were hired (the draft) to every move they make...in or out of the "office?"

Its not just dealing with multible "personalities" that makes the NFL coaching job unique. THere is NO comparison to coaching HS kids, where every kid basically grew up in the same kicking grounds, or managing a McDonalds where you deal with 'multiple personalities.' Its MUCH more than just multiple personalities... its multiple ethnic backrounds, financial backrounds, cultural backrounds, educational backrounds, point of origin....all to the EXTREME degree.

Then its understanding, that generally speaking your higher paid employees in the NFL, are more important to your customers and bosses than YOU (the coach) are.

Of course you can't coddle, I agree that you can't please everyone all the time...but you better have an understanding that you can't attempt to go overboard and try to DAMAND over-discipline. Coughlin learned that trying to be the disciplinarian. Dick Vermeil learned that when in St. Louis. Thats why I was stating that I would take an NFL coaches opinion on how things were/have been handled over someone that is purely looking from the outside. I would venture to guess, that these coaches that "only got their info from the media like I did" still have a MUCH MUCH more understanding as to how things are run/dealt/handled than any of us.... no matter what kind of job we have 'managing multiple personalities.'

TXBRONC
08-25-2009, 10:55 AM
At his current rate, he'll be lucky to have 50 passes thrown to him this year.

Edited for accuracy.

topscribe
08-25-2009, 10:57 AM
You make a lot of sense, Rav. The Coach needs to understand that different
personaliities must be approached and worked with in different ways. That said,
the player--regardless of who he is--must understand at any level (1) who runs
the show and (2) the same rules apply to everyone.

-----

Gimpygod
08-25-2009, 12:17 PM
I just wonder how Marshall thinks he is going to improve his perceived worth by
sandbagging and refusing to perform? It doesn't seem he's being too bright here.
With the image he is creating, neither the Broncos nor anyone else is going to
want to pay him what he wants for quite a while.

-----

Conversely who would want to come play for the Broncos now? Regardless of how talented, or hard-working you are you are out the door if one of McDaniels friends comes onto the market, you get treated like crap under the auspice of "no one is more important than the team." Even though the inflated ego of the coach is obviously the Paramount concern. Believe it or not my example for this one is my most disheartening move of the off-season, getting rid of Leach, a guy playing his position nearly perfectly and with absolutely the correct attitude, so he could bring in his buddy at twice the cost.

I really, really don't like the modus operandi of this first-time coach. He acts as though he has nothing to learn even though this is his first gig.maybe he should do some good coaching and leading by bringing marshal back into the fold and being a stellar player, Belichick did it with Randy Moss. Or is McDaniels so bad at coaching he can only deal with players who need no coaching? Or spirited players, or players with heart, or personality, competitive edge... etc. At some point (actually at every point) the coach is responsible for the makeup and attitude of his team. If there is a general feeling of malaise and lack of enthusiasm in bronco land, it's up to McDaniels to fix. Or we could just keep throwing away super quality players because he lacks the ability to work with them. I'm sure there are hundreds of guys who got all the way up to the professional ranks because they didn't have eego and attitude about their abilities... sarcasm! Very many of the qualities you all see as failings are mandatory for greatness.

CoachChaz
08-25-2009, 12:21 PM
Conversely who would want to come play for the Broncos now? Regardless of how talented, or hard-working you are you are out the door if one of McDaniels friends comes onto the market, you get treated like crap under the auspice of "no one is more important than the team." Even though the inflated ego of the coach is obviously the Paramount concern. Believe it or not my example for this one is my most disheartening move of the off-season, getting rid of Leach, a guy playing his position nearly perfectly and with absolutely the correct attitude, so he could bring in his buddy at twice the cost.

I really, really don't like the modus operandi of this first-time coach. He acts as though he has nothing to learn even though this is his first gig.maybe he should do some good coaching and leading by bringing marshal back into the fold and being a stellar player, Belichick did it with Randy Moss. Or is McDaniels so bad at coaching he can only deal with players who need no coaching? Or spirited players, or players with heart, or personality, competitive edge... etc. At some point (actually at every point) the coach is responsible for the makeup and attitude of his team. If there is a general feeling of malaise and lack of enthusiasm in bronco land, it's up to McDaniels to fix. Or we could just keep throwing away super quality players because he lacks the ability to work with them. I'm sure there are hundreds of guys who got all the way up to the professional ranks because they didn't have eego and attitude about their abilities... sarcasm! Very many of the qualities you all see as failings are mandatory for greatness.

Again i ask...WTF does McD have to do with Marshall not getting paid, getting upset with the PR dept and training staff and being hurt?

NOTHING!!!!

Thnikkaman
08-25-2009, 12:31 PM
Conversely who would want to come play for the Broncos now? Regardless of how talented, or hard-working you are you are out the door if one of McDaniels friends comes onto the market, you get treated like crap under the auspice of "no one is more important than the team." Even though the inflated ego of the coach is obviously the Paramount concern. Believe it or not my example for this one is my most disheartening move of the off-season, getting rid of Leach, a guy playing his position nearly perfectly and with absolutely the correct attitude, so he could bring in his buddy at twice the cost.

I really, really don't like the modus operandi of this first-time coach. He acts as though he has nothing to learn even though this is his first gig.maybe he should do some good coaching and leading by bringing marshal back into the fold and being a stellar player, Belichick did it with Randy Moss. Or is McDaniels so bad at coaching he can only deal with players who need no coaching? Or spirited players, or players with heart, or personality, competitive edge... etc. At some point (actually at every point) the coach is responsible for the makeup and attitude of his team. If there is a general feeling of malaise and lack of enthusiasm in bronco land, it's up to McDaniels to fix. Or we could just keep throwing away super quality players because he lacks the ability to work with them. I'm sure there are hundreds of guys who got all the way up to the professional ranks because they didn't have eego and attitude about their abilities... sarcasm! Very many of the qualities you all see as failings are mandatory for greatness.

Try to look at things from a different perspective. I agree that Leach was a quality player, but an expendable one. McDaniels wanted a man with some leadership qualities that new the basics of his system that he could bring in to help. We have also heard praise about McDaniel's "buddy" about getting the ball exactly where the kickers want it, and we have seen him run down the field and block better than Leach did. Leach landed with his feet on the ground just fine, and will continue to improve.

And as far as his modus operandi, which would you rather have? A Coach that acts like "its an honor to be here", or a coach that takes charge and acts like he belongs there. In interviews and press conferences, I have seen nothing but humility and the desire to win from McDaniels. In practice, he is out there running around with the players to make sure that they are doing what he is coaching. McDaniels seems to want something that Shanahan wasn't looking for, and that is Excellence. There is a difference between Super Quality and Excellence. Cutler did not want Excellence, he wanted to play the way he wanted where he wanted to play. And he got his wish. Marshal needs to get this "I've paid my dues" bullshit out of his head realize that all that McDaniels wants to do while he is a Bronco is to help him achieve Excellence.



----------------
Now playing: Mos Def, Jean Grae & Memphis Bleek – Crooklyn Dodgers 3 (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/mos+def%2c+jean+grae+%26+memphis+bleek/track/crooklyn+dodgers+3)
via FoxyTunes (http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/)

scott.475
08-25-2009, 12:34 PM
Marshall needs to take a few lessons from Chad Johnson last year. What was it he said after his little bit of drama, something the the effect of "the only player on the team that has leverage is the star QB." Something like that, and if the Bengals didn't blink for Chad then, who has proven more than Marshall has, well...

At any rate, at this point I really think I would prefer to see him go because I really do not think he can keep his off-field issues in control and I would rather his next suspension come at the expense of another team. It seams he is starting to develop a hatred toward the Broncos so I can imagine him thinking "screw them, I'm not going to control myself for their benefit". Don't know, of course, just a feeling.

Gimpygod
08-25-2009, 12:44 PM
And you know this how? I dont claim to have ever coached any in the NFL, but aside from money...what is the difference? You still have multiple personalities that you have to deal with and you will NEVER make everyone happy. The only choice is to walk in, tell the team how you run the show and they can either conform or cry.

I dont see the Bailey's and Dawkins and Williams and Clady's and Stokley's getting their panties in a bunch. Do you think all of them have the exact same personality and preferences? Not likely. but they are professional and understand how it works.

The coach that tries to make everyone happy and coddles certain players and not others is destined to fail. I'm glad McD isnt that way

:shocked:

Tempus Fugit
08-25-2009, 01:43 PM
You don't reward your child for pouting.

Why is it that the anti-McDaniels crowd can't see that their bias is infecting their thought process?

Lonestar
08-25-2009, 01:51 PM
You don't reward your child for pouting.

Why is it that the anti-McDaniels crowd can't see that their bias is infecting their thought process?


I have been asking myself that for months..

Great post..

claymore
08-25-2009, 02:02 PM
You don't reward your child for pouting.

Why is it that the anti-McDaniels crowd can't see that their bias is infecting their thought process?

I dont like McDaniels, and think we should trade Marshall. The time for JMCD to fix this with money has passed.

Thnikkaman
08-25-2009, 02:03 PM
You don't reward your child for pouting.

Why is it that the anti-McDaniels crowd can't see that their bias is infecting their thought process?

Playing the devil's advocate, the other side can say the thing about the pro-McDaniels crowd.

I want to see the Broncos succeed. Its hard for this to happen if the players don't want to do what it takes to succeed. Do the anti-Mcdaniels folks really think he want's drag the Broncos to the basement? That he came here to do a horrible job so that he won't get another look as a Head Coach? McDaniels pedigree looks pretty good. Even if other Bellichek coaches have failed in the NFL, what makes you think that McDaniels is automatically going to fail?

----------------
Now playing: The Nonce – World Ultimate (1995) (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/the+nonce/track/world+ultimate)
via FoxyTunes (http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/)

Tempus Fugit
08-25-2009, 02:14 PM
Playing the devil's advocate, the other side can say the thing about the pro-McDaniels crowd.

They really can't, though, for the most part. Most of the "Pro-McDaniels" crowd have been willing to accept the idea that McDaniels has made mistakes, whether they know what the mistakes were or not, based upon Bowlen's comment regarding this.

On the other hand, the Anti-McDaniels people have steadfastly ignored or minimized the actions of all others in the two conflicts (Cutler and Marshall), and have pummeled McDaniels about pretty much everything else they don't like, from signing a different long snapper to insufficient rain in the southeast. Heck, just read some of the sigs and avatars and you can see it.

CoachChaz
08-25-2009, 02:19 PM
We're completely forgetting the fact that McD has nothing to do with Marshall getting a contract.

Gimpygod
08-25-2009, 02:20 PM
Try to look at things from a different perspective. I agree that Leach was a quality player, but an expendable one. McDaniels wanted a man with some leadership qualities that new the basics of his system that he could bring in to help. We have also heard praise about McDaniel's "buddy" about getting the ball exactly where the kickers want it, and we have seen him run down the field and block better than Leach did. Leach landed with his feet on the ground just fine, and will continue to improve.

And as far as his modus operandi, which would you rather have? A Coach that acts like "its an honor to be here", or a coach that takes charge and acts like he belongs there. In interviews and press conferences, I have seen nothing but humility and the desire to win from McDaniels. In practice, he is out there running around with the players to make sure that they are doing what he is coaching. McDaniels seems to want something that Shanahan wasn't looking for, and that is Excellence. There is a difference between Super Quality and Excellence. Cutler did not want Excellence, he wanted to play the way he wanted where he wanted to play. And he got his wish. Marshal needs to get this "I've paid my dues" bullshit out of his head realize that all that McDaniels wants to do while he is a Bronco is to help him achieve Excellence.

Leech did exactly the same thing for half the money, it's called cronyism. Leach was dedicated to the team and performed at the highest level... supposedly qualities coach Chaz believed to be important. Yet he is gone and replaced by a friend Of McDaniels.

Shanahan and Cutler didn't want excellence?! I'm not exactly sure what McDaniels has done that warrants all of you believing his every move is best for the team. Shanahan made this team the most winning team over his tenure yet many here For some unknown reason believe a rookie head coach is by default superior. What has McDaniels ever done as a head coach? Nothing! What I do know is I watched Brandon Marshall play his heart out for the team and have hundred plus catch seasons, I watched Cutler play on through a grave illness for this team And play at very high level. After being diagnosed, he played even better throwing for over 4000 yards. His reward? An attempt to oust him from the team in yet another act of cronyism. Isn't there even the slightest chance McDaniels is an arrogant turd who is in over his head? I know I had seen him do more detrimental things than good thus far, yes I know he hasn't played a game yet which makes it even worse. Keep in mind this is coming from a guy whose life forces them to look at the brighter side. If life forces me to eat a grilled crap sandwich I'm the person who says, "At least it was toasty... wish my breath Didn't smell so bad now however."

For the last 26 years or so the excitement of the upcoming season always brought me great joy and hopefulness but now I'm just angry and find no happiness in the upcoming season. The players are expected to be loyal and give their very health to the organization (which Shanahan rewarded as you can see by the end of Rod Smith's and Davises careers) where the new regime will toss our best players out on their keister for a buddy of inferior talent... how do I root for that? How do I root for a team that had a young, intelligent and tremendously gifted quarterback with a great future and threw them away for a quarterback with all the stupid of Jake Plummer without all the physical talent? A guy who throws three interceptions in his debut and grinning his stupid face off on the sideline. For some reason many of you believe all the compromise must be made by the players, truly great leaders compromise, adjust and adapt all the time. This weasel isn't going to do any of those things if he believes everything he does is infallible.

I want my happy back, G. Money tell me where the silver lining is. A good first step would be making Hillis starting running back and offering Eddie Royal a new contract because he is the real deal.

Tned
08-25-2009, 02:22 PM
I have been asking myself that for months..

Great post..


You don't reward your child for pouting.

Why is it that the anti-McDaniels crowd can't see that their bias is infecting their thought process?

Why is it that anyone that doesn't gush incesitantly, bash Shanahan and God forbid, question a move or two is anti-McDaniels.

It's BS, to be honest. Bluster.

I am by NO means anti-McDaniels. I was just called a McDaniels appologist on Mania :lol: I love when I am labled two sides of the coin at the same time. :laugh:

Now, I am going to simply quote you, to point out the flip side:

"Why is it that the _______ crowd can't see that their bias is infecting their thought process?"

Now, replace _____ with Pro-McDaniels, or anti-cutler or anti-marshall and your sentence is just as accurate.

Are you guys going to sit there and 'honestly' tell me your own bias doesn't come into play on how you view this situation and what you post?

Lonestar
08-25-2009, 02:25 PM
They really can't, though, for the most part. Most of the "Pro-McDaniels" crowd have been willing to accept the idea that McDaniels has made mistakes, whether they know what the mistakes were or not, based upon Bowlen's comment regarding this.

On the other hand, the Anti-McDaniels people have steadfastly ignored or minimized the actions of all others in the two conflicts (Cutler and Marshall), and have pummeled McDaniels about pretty much everything else they don't like, from signing a different long snapper to insufficient rain in the southeast. Heck, just read some of the sigs and avatars and you can see it.



most fans were ready to move on to another regime.. but some think that the guy walked on water and if given another year or 12 he would bring them to the promised land when he got that "one player" that would get them over the top..

I thought he was great OC but past that IMHO he was pretty much a FAIL..

even the past couple of years I saw alot of folks question calls or his decisions more than I had before..

now the new Guy does he have warts sure and anyone expecting this team to be solid day one in regular season well they are dreaming, as the changes in schemes, coaches and players is just to huge for it to be running on all cylinders for most of the year..

things are going to fail like in the second game the ST bit the big one after the blocked punt after looking like world beaters in game one..

this team is very young and with that come inconsistency.. give them a year and I see something special going on..

Gimpygod
08-25-2009, 02:27 PM
Again i ask...WTF does McD have to do with Marshall not getting paid, getting upset with the PR dept and training staff and being hurt?

NOTHING!!!!


Okay, I'll answer. Remember how many stellar players were willing to renegotiate and restructure their contracts so they could play under someone they respected like Shanahan? Well, if you're playing for a jack off, like McDaniels, you at least want the pay to be good.

Tempus Fugit
08-25-2009, 02:27 PM
Now, replace _____ with Pro-McDaniels, or anti-cutler or anti-marshall and your sentence is just as accurate.

No, it's not.


Are you guys going to sit there and 'honestly' tell me your own bias doesn't come into play on how you view this situation and what you post?

Yes, I am.


Edit:

Here's a perfect example of my point:


Okay, I'll answer. Remember how many stellar players were willing to renegotiate and restructure their contracts so they could play under someone they respected like Shanahan? Well, if you're playing for a jack off, like McDaniels, you at least want the pay to be good.

claymore
08-25-2009, 02:28 PM
They really can't, though, for the most part. Most of the "Pro-McDaniels" crowd have been willing to accept the idea that McDaniels has made mistakes, whether they know what the mistakes were or not, based upon Bowlen's comment regarding this.

On the other hand, the Anti-McDaniels people have steadfastly ignored or minimized the actions of all others in the two conflicts (Cutler and Marshall), and have pummeled McDaniels about pretty much everything else they don't like, from signing a different long snapper to insufficient rain in the southeast. Heck, just read some of the sigs and avatars and you can see it.Maybe the pro McDaniels crowd doesnt realize what we gave up for JMCD's patriot way?

Tned
08-25-2009, 02:29 PM
They really can't, though, for the most part. Most of the "Pro-McDaniels" crowd have been willing to accept the idea that McDaniels has made mistakes, whether they know what the mistakes were or not, based upon Bowlen's comment regarding this.

On the other hand, the Anti-McDaniels people have steadfastly ignored or minimized the actions of all others in the two conflicts (Cutler and Marshall), and have pummeled McDaniels about pretty much everything else they don't like, from signing a different long snapper to insufficient rain in the southeast. Heck, just read some of the sigs and avatars and you can see it.

That might be true of the true anti-McDaniels people, but the vast, vast majority of people stuck with that label have fully admitted to the immaturity and mistakes that Cutler and Marshall made.

Again, the same can be said about those that hate Cutler, they refuse to admit that McDaniels might have done ANYTHING wrong. Same with Marshall.

This really doesn't have to be either/or, guys. There really could be, and usually is, two sides to a story.

Lonestar
08-25-2009, 02:32 PM
Why is it that anyone that doesn't gush incesitantly, bash Shanahan and God forbid, question a move or two is anti-McDaniels.

It's BS, to be honest. Bluster.

I am by NO means anti-McDaniels. I was just called a McDaniels appologist on Mania :lol: I love when I am labled two sides of the coin at the same time. :laugh:

Now, I am going to simply quote you, to point out the flip side:

"Why is it that the _______ crowd can't see that their bias is infecting their thought process?"

Now, replace _____ with Pro-McDaniels, or anti-cutler or anti-marshall and your sentence is just as accurate.

Are you guys going to sit there and 'honestly' tell me your own bias doesn't come into play on how you view this situation and what you post?

We all have biases and I do not think anyone is saying we do not.. we just are not ranting about Joshes whistle twiddling, presence on the TV, or that he is short..

most of us have an open mind about what is happening in the near future..

but some can't get past that there has been a change and it is time to move on..

I have went into this season expecting a losing season and I"M OK with that IF that means we are stronger next year and from that point on..

And yes Josh could be the worst thing that happened to the Broncos since vertical striped socks..

But from everything I can see in my limited view from afar is he is making a huge change in life in Dove Valley.. IMHO a positive one..

CoachChaz
08-25-2009, 02:35 PM
That might be true of the true anti-McDaniels people, but the vast, vast majority of people stuck with that label have fully admitted to the immaturity and mistakes that Cutler and Marshall made.

Again, the same can be said about those that hate Cutler, they refuse to admit that McDaniels might have done ANYTHING wrong. Same with Marshall.

This really doesn't have to be either/or, guys. There really could be, and usually is, two sides to a story.

I'll disagree with that. IMO, I think most of "us" are completely open to the fact that the pooch could have been screwed on either side. What we typically believe is that we know NOTHING other than what the always trustworthy media tells us. When you follow that up with the way Jay acted afterward...it causes some of us to lean to a particular side.

claymore
08-25-2009, 02:39 PM
most fans were ready to move on to another regime.. but some think that the guy walked on water and if given another year or 12 he would bring them to the promised land when he got that "one player" that would get them over the top..

I thought he was great OC but past that IMHO he was pretty much a FAIL..

even the past couple of years I saw alot of folks question calls or his decisions more than I had before..

now the new Guy does he have warts sure and anyone expecting this team to be solid day one in regular season well they are dreaming, as the changes in schemes, coaches and players is just to huge for it to be running on all cylinders for most of the year..

things are going to fail like in the second game the ST bit the big one after the blocked punt after looking like world beaters in game one..

this team is very young and with that come inconsistency.. give them a year and I see something special going on..

I wanted a new coach. But if you gave me the choice of New coach, No Cutler, and No Marshall Or Shannahan and Cutler and Marshall, I would have taken Shannahan.

CoachChaz
08-25-2009, 02:41 PM
I wanted a new coach. But if you gave me the choice of New coach, No Cutler, and No Marshall Or Shannahan and Cutler and Marshall, I would have taken Shannahan.

I have a feeling Marshall was going to want money regardless of who the coach was. The Cutler scenario probably would have been different, but I'll gladly trade Cutler and Marshall for a shot at having a team that eventually wins more than 7-9 games again.

Gimpygod
08-25-2009, 02:42 PM
No, it's not.



Yes, I am.


Edit:

Here's a perfect example of my point:

So you are saying that you are perfectly rational in believing human beings will work just as hard for someone they don't like and don't trust? Nope

Thnikkaman
08-25-2009, 02:55 PM
I'm going to break your post up a little bit to respond.


Leech did exactly the same thing for half the money, it's called cronyism. Leach was dedicated to the team and performed at the highest level... supposedly qualities coach Chaz believed to be important. Yet he is gone and replaced by a friend Of McDaniels.

I said I can see why McDaniels did what he did. To provide some leadership from someone who already knew his system in a position that requires leadership. Our Special teams have been crap for a while now. Leach could snap the ball, but was he being a leader as the anchor of the line for special teams plays? Call it cronyism or not, we will see how it pans out at the end of the season.


Shanahan and Cutler didn't want excellence?

The lack of preparation in Camp and the last three games of last season speak for themselves. Shanahan wanted to win by any needs necessary. That is not excellence. Cutler exuded the attitude of a quarterback who was pouting that his girlfriend just broke up with him every time things didn't go his way. In game or dealing with the Cassel situation. He has incredible physical talent, but its not clicking for him in his head, or his heart. And as far as his disease goes, he knows how he should be taking care of his body, but he still drinks. Diabetics that drink don't live very long. Cutler is not pursuing excellence, he is pursuing fame and notoriety.


I'm not exactly sure what McDaniels has done that warrants all of you believing his every move is best for the team. Shanahan made this team the most winning team over his tenure yet many here For some unknown reason believe a rookie head coach is by default superior. What has McDaniels ever done as a head coach? Nothing!

I'm stopping this here to interject. We know he has done nothing but be a very good Offensive Coordinator for a team who is in the middle (or possibly the tail end) of a dynasty. We also know that he is a rookie head coach trying to prove his worth. No he is not incapable of making mistakes. Nobody is. But I have to at least think that he is going to do what he can to prove that he can resurrect a franchise.

Shanahan was a great head coach. I think he was doing the right things until he made the Defensive Coordinator job in Denver a revolving door. He got comfortable in his job because he thought he had security.

I can't say that McDaniels is superior until he can consistantly win as a head coach. Right now however, he is better for our team than a head coach that feels that he can do whatever he wants without fear of loosing his job.


What I do know is I watched Brandon Marshall play his heart out for the team and have hundred plus catch seasons, I watched Cutler play on through a grave illness for this team And play at very high level. After being diagnosed, he played even better throwing for over 4000 yards. His reward? An attempt to oust him from the team in yet another act of cronyism.

I have also watched these two lose focus from the Team concept while the greatest coach of Denver Broncos history let it happen.


Isn't there even the slightest chance McDaniels is an arrogant turd who is in over his head? I know I had seen him do more detrimental things than good thus far, yes I know he hasn't played a game yet which makes it even worse. Keep in mind this is coming from a guy whose life forces them to look at the brighter side. If life forces me to eat a grilled crap sandwich I'm the person who says, "At least it was toasty... wish my breath Didn't smell so bad now however."

But wouldn't you rather believe he is not? I know what you have been through in your life, and for some reason, I expect you to be one of the last people in the world to be pessimistic.


For the last 26 years or so the excitement of the upcoming season always brought me great joy and hopefulness but now I'm just angry and find no happiness in the upcoming season. The players are expected to be loyal and give their very health to the organization (which Shanahan rewarded as you can see by the end of Rod Smith's and Davises careers) where the new regime will toss our best players out on their keister for a buddy of inferior talent... how do I root for that? How do I root for a team that had a young, intelligent and tremendously gifted quarterback with a great future and threw them away for a quarterback with all the stupid of Jake Plummer without all the physical talent? A guy who throws three interceptions in his debut and grinning his stupid face off on the sideline. For some reason many of you believe all the compromise must be made by the players, truly great leaders compromise, adjust and adapt all the time. This weasel isn't going to do any of those things if he believes everything he does is infallible.

I want my happy back, G. Money tell me where the silver lining is. A good first step would be making Hillis starting running back and offering Eddie Royal a new contract because he is the real deal.

You and you alone have let your outlook become this way. If you want to believe that McDaniels is not the answer, that's cool. You are entitled to that opinion. Its a wonderful thing that guy throwing 3 interceptions was doing it in a pre season game. A game that's only purpose is to get our starters used to NFL speed and to weed out the players who shouldn't be wearing a Broncos uniform. A smile after doing it is better than sitting by yourself and pouting. He is more of a Team player than Cutler has shown me to be. If Cutler can figure out how to be a team player, than he will gain a little more respect from me. As far as Marshal is concerned, I still believe that the press is making a story out of this. I am content to wait and see how it plays out.

Your silver lining is that its fall, and football season is starting. I'm excited about this season weather we go 2-14 or 14-2. I'm excited to see Hillis and Moreno run the rock. I'm excited to see how Orton does when he isn't playing for a team who's mindset is "the Defense will win the game for us, just score enough points" behind the best O-Line in football.

All I am asking as that you give McDaniels a chance to see if he knows what he is doing or not before you throw him under the bus.

----------------
Now playing: [HD] Sigur Rós – Sćglópur (a.k.a. "Lost at Sea") (Video) (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/sigur+r%c3%b3s/track/s%c3%a6gl%c3%b3pur)
via FoxyTunes (http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/)

Gimpygod
08-25-2009, 03:01 PM
I have a feeling Marshall was going to want money regardless of who the coach was. The Cutler scenario probably would have been different, but I'll gladly trade Cutler and Marshall for a shot at having a team that eventually wins more than 7-9 games again.

And you think it's reasonable to believe Shanahaan was never going to win more than seven games per season... ever?:confused: The guy who got reporters to call Jake Plummer "no mistake Jake?" I'm with Claymore, I was concerned yet excited about the prospects of a coaching change. What's really killing me is, "you inherit the second-ranked offense in the NFL and a god-awful defense. What's the first thing you do? Nuke the offense obviously silly." Again, all of your "reasonable" support of McDaniels is based on what? He was a coordinator for a pretty damn good team (psst, they were good because they have good players) and he is wicked goodat creating an environment that alienates talent and makes rabid bronco fans show up in fewer numbers to training camp and boo the ineptitude of the new squad. Note, all of the other coordinators from the same team have failed at head-coaching. That is not very rational.

Tempus Fugit
08-25-2009, 03:02 PM
So you are saying that you are perfectly rational in believing human beings will work just as hard for someone they don't like and don't trust? Nope

Personally, I'm on the outside looking in with all of this stuff. I'm a relatively disinterested party, since it's about curiosity for me rather than about rooting in any particular direction. I thought that McDaniels should have turned down the Denver offer, because he's a rookie coach following a Denver legend, and I expected that he'd never get an even break. Coming from that perspective, I see that Cutler was an issue before the new coach was ever hired, and I see that Marshall's beef with the team is about contract and an injury that was from before the new coach was hired.

In other words, the two major 'issues' began as problems before McDaniels even arrived on scene. Nonetheless, the blame has been placed on McDaniels, by a lot of Broncos fans and by many posters here, as if he's Satan in human form. I wasn't saying anything other than that your post made my point.

G_Money
08-25-2009, 03:07 PM
"I'm rational and you're a moron" is the refuge of the weak, and beneath the people invoking it, because none of them are the weak. Get a better argument.

We're all biased. Events in our lives, the way we deal with interpersonal relationships...we have a hundred different influences that prejudice us to be supportive of or antagonistic toward a particular action or thought.

Or person.

I'm not a McDaniels believer. I don't hate him, and I sure as hell don't want him to fail so I can be right. I just think the pitfalls in the way he's proceeded since he got here have a higher likelyhood of working out to our detriment than our benefit, even if his goals were laudable.

But that's what's left to be determined: if he can get to the ends we all want utilizing these means.

Coughlin did. Parcells did. Belichick did.

Weis didn't. Mangini didn't. Lots and lots of people didn't, sadly, but there are enough success stories not to count Josh out at this horribly early juncture.

Being the smartest man in the room is fine if you can make that work, and Josh has not yet had the chance to prove whether he can or not. There's really no sense getting bent out of shape about it just so you can be right and rub it in your friend's face. Give the man his time to get his feet under him, and yet watch his actions closely to see whether he's actually doing that or not. Screwing up the Marshall PR issue was another checkmark against Josh on the ledger IMO, but we still have time.

I have noticed that my perceptions of how our front office operates seem far different than those who vocally and vociferously support McDaniels and his actions in total. I'm curious to see how it turns out with Josh, and how much power he wields throughout the organization.

But I am really tired of the signal-to-noise ratio amongst Broncos fans this offseason. I'm looking very much forward to real games, so we can see real gameplans and judge real progress. Bias will still be there, but at least it'll have actual data behind the conclusion.

The rest of this is just a pissing contest and of no more value than the "Great Taste!" "Less Filling!" ads. Josh has not (yet) butchered the Broncos chances for at least half a decade and he has not (yet) cleansed the culture and crafted a champion's winning ways.

Gimpy - silver linings?

- Our defense is no longer run by a man whose brain was removed via alien probe and replaced with a headless chicken.
- McDaniels does run the sort of offense that Orton or Simms SHOULD be able to master somewhat effectively as the season wears on.
- we should still have a fearsome running game and the ability for both Hillis and Moreno to wreak havoc on defenses and keep them off of Orton.
- our OL is young and pretty
- Royal is going to be a monster with these multitudes of patterns and his ability to change direction

I will make no comment on the DL, or the LBs. I think we have front seven problems that will become apparent as our OLBs butcher coverages and our DL gets blown down in the middle of the field. And I do expect serious growing pains at QB.

But I just expect problems this year, whether Josh is ultimately successful or not. I think he's made far more problems for himself than he needed to make and I find some of his observed traits disturbing, but he can overcome those.

This will be a year of good and bad. Shanahan's years were typified by fast starts due to good gameplans and an opponent's uncertainty about how to exploit weaknesses. Once all the tape was in our D got progressively worse and our seasons stalled. I don't expect as fast a start this year. I don't expect the defense to have mastered the 3-4 by the time we start the year, nor the QB to be able to harness the intricacies of Josh's offense.

But I would like to see us finish strong. And I would like to stop alienating players the second they have an issue.

There are a LOT of issues that crop up during the season, and "I don't give a ****" is not the appropriate response for all of them. Josh is holding firm to his course thus far and not changing much of anything from his early mistakes. That concerns me.

But the season is where the results are, and I don't necessarily fault him for holding course pending actual results and not the mirage of competition we've had thus far.

If he can change course if and when the results tell him that his way is harmful to his chances, I'll be much more impressed.

Having his way be the way to ultimate success without any change would be nearly impossible. Even Coughlin changed enough - after his ways reached a self-imposed ceiling - to win.

And I think that's a way for a hardass to emulate. Now that Josh is our hardass, I want him to be flexible enough to win often and win big. His way is not the way I would do it, but his way can be adjusted to win.

As long as he is able to do that, Gimpy, we'll be fine.

~G

Tned
08-25-2009, 03:07 PM
most fans were ready to move on to another regime.. but some think that the guy walked on water and if given another year or 12 he would bring them to the promised land when he got that "one player" that would get them over the top..



This is the kind of language that creates the 'rebound' hater effect you guys are talking about. You are a Shanahan hater and bash him, which causes rational fans that realize Mike did a damn good job with this team the last 14 years, to feel the need to defend him.

What makes matters worse, is when the blatant slam on fans that refuse to bash Shanahan (or insert Cutler, Plummer, McDaniels, Orton, etc.) is mixed in with praise for the counter part, the natural reaction is to get a response that is defending the person you are slamming (Shanahan, Cutler or Marshall) and that defense will often appear 'critical' of the other guy, because they are telling the 'other side of the story'.

If people would stop taking such all or nothing, extreme positions, we likely wouldn't continue with the tense debates that a lot of people are sick of seeing.

Just my opinion, YMMV.

claymore
08-25-2009, 03:10 PM
And you think it's reasonable to believe Shanahaan was never going to win more than seven games per season... ever?:confused: The guy who got reporters to call Jake Plummer "no mistake Jake?" I'm with Claymore, I was concerned yet excited about the prospects of a coaching change. What's really killing me is, "you inherit the second-ranked offense in the NFL and a god-awful defense. What's the first thing you do? Nuke the offense obviously silly." Again, all of your "reasonable" support of McDaniels is based on what? He was a coordinator for a pretty damn good team (psst, they were good because they have good players) and he is wicked goodat creating an environment that alienates talent and makes rabid bronco fans show up in fewer numbers to training camp and boo the ineptitude of the new squad. Note, all of the other coordinators from the same team have failed at head-coaching. That is not very rational.

Its not worth arguing. Ive given up. We can all scream at JMCD in unison if he sucks. And Cry tears in our beers if Cutler goes to the HOF.

Tned
08-25-2009, 03:11 PM
I'll disagree with that. IMO, I think most of "us" are completely open to the fact that the pooch could have been screwed on either side. What we typically believe is that we know NOTHING other than what the always trustworthy media tells us. When you follow that up with the way Jay acted afterward...it causes some of us to lean to a particular side.

And, I can also say that when viewed afterwards, I saw Cutler say "I think both sides made mistakes, and could have done things differetnly" or something like that, McDaniels said, "the player left us no choice" or something like that, never making any indication of it being a two way street.

Same with Marshall, the hard liners are taking the view it is 100% Marshall's fault. Maybe it is, but we have no 'facts' to back that up. We have a timeline, which looks earily like he was being punished due to the fact his agent asked for a renegotiation/trade, but we don't have facts to back that up either.

You've chosen to land on one side of the fence, and you are entitled to that opinion, as I'm entitled to believe that in both cases, based on what I have seen, both parties have shown fault and could have/should have handled some things differently.

Gimpygod
08-25-2009, 03:19 PM
I'm going to break your post up a little bit to respond.



I said I can see why McDaniels did what he did. To provide some leadership from someone who already knew his system in a position that requires leadership. Our Special teams have been crap for a while now. Leach could snap the ball, but was he being a leader as the anchor of the line for special teams plays? Call it cronyism or not, we will see how it pans out at the end of the season.



The lack of preparation in Camp and the last three games of last season speak for themselves. Shanahan wanted to win by any needs necessary. That is not excellence. Cutler exuded the attitude of a quarterback who was pouting that his girlfriend just broke up with him every time things didn't go his way. In game or dealing with the Cassel situation. He has incredible physical talent, but its not clicking for him in his head, or his heart. And as far as his disease goes, he knows how he should be taking care of his body, but he still drinks. Diabetics that drink don't live very long. Cutler is not pursuing excellence, he is pursuing fame and notoriety.



I'm stopping this here to interject. We know he has done nothing but be a very good Offensive Coordinator for a team who is in the middle (or possibly the tail end) of a dynasty. We also know that he is a rookie head coach trying to prove his worth. No he is not incapable of making mistakes. Nobody is. But I have to at least think that he is going to do what he can to prove that he can resurrect a franchise.

Shanahan was a great head coach. I think he was doing the right things until he made the Defensive Coordinator job in Denver a revolving door. He got comfortable in his job because he thought he had security.

I can't say that McDaniels is superior until he can consistantly win as a head coach. Right now however, he is better for our team than a head coach that feels that he can do whatever he wants without fear of loosing his job.



I have also watched these two lose focus from the Team concept while the greatest coach of Denver Broncos history let it happen.



But wouldn't you rather believe he is not? I know what you have been through in your life, and for some reason, I expect you to be one of the last people in the world to be pessimistic.



You and you alone have let your outlook become this way. If you want to believe that McDaniels is not the answer, that's cool. You are entitled to that opinion. Its a wonderful thing that guy throwing 3 interceptions was doing it in a pre season game. A game that's only purpose is to get our starters used to NFL speed and to weed out the players who shouldn't be wearing a Broncos uniform. A smile after doing it is better than sitting by yourself and pouting. He is more of a Team player than Cutler has shown me to be. If Cutler can figure out how to be a team player, than he will gain a little more respect from me. As far as Marshal is concerned, I still believe that the press is making a story out of this. I am content to wait and see how it plays out.

Your silver lining is that its fall, and football season is starting. I'm excited about this season weather we go 2-14 or 14-2. I'm excited to see Hillis and Moreno run the rock. I'm excited to see how Orton does when he isn't playing for a team who's mindset is "the Defense will win the game for us, just score enough points" behind the best O-Line in football.

All I am asking as that you give McDaniels a chance to see if he knows what he is doing or not before you throw him under the bus.

----------------
Now playing: [HD] Sigur Rós – Sćglópur (a.k.a. "Lost at Sea") (Video) (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/sigur+r%c3%b3s/track/s%c3%a6gl%c3%b3pur)
via FoxyTunes (http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/)

I like you... I don't agree with you, but I like you. All I know is I used to have hope for the Broncos even when things looked bad and was accused of not being realistic, a homer and looking at things through orange colored glasses. Now that we've gotten rid of our franchise quarterback, made some stupid moves in the draft, have a coach who is definitely into cronyism (as far as I know McDaniels has never been heralded as a special teams guru so not sure how Leech wouldn't fit into his system) and as a result feel pessimistic. This pessimism is being viewed as being unrealistic... so when I have hope I'm unrealistic, when I'm pessimistic (based on actual circumstances and not hoped-for future outcomes) I'm unrealistic. Either I have the worst timing in the universe or somebody here is full of crap!;)

Thnikkaman
08-25-2009, 03:27 PM
I would be a liar to say that I'm unbiased. I'm a broncos fan. I've been known to cry and be in a funk when they lose.

Gimpy, I have no intention of trying to get you to think the same way I do, just to consider a different point of view. I just hope this season is entertaining.

claymore
08-25-2009, 03:32 PM
I would be a liar to say that I'm unbiased. I'm a broncos fan. I've been known to cry and be in a funk when they lose.

Gimpy, I have no intention of trying to get you to think the same way I do, just to consider a different point of view. I just hope this season is entertaining.

I just want to win. I think overall we have hurt our chances at winning. :D If its a bad Bronco year, I will get more yardwork done.

topscribe
08-25-2009, 03:33 PM
Conversely who would want to come play for the Broncos now? Regardless of how talented, or hard-working you are you are out the door if one of McDaniels friends comes onto the market, you get treated like crap under the auspice of "no one is more important than the team." Even though the inflated ego of the coach is obviously the Paramount concern. Believe it or not my example for this one is my most disheartening move of the off-season, getting rid of Leach, a guy playing his position nearly perfectly and with absolutely the correct attitude, so he could bring in his buddy at twice the cost.

I really, really don't like the modus operandi of this first-time coach. He acts as though he has nothing to learn even though this is his first gig.maybe he should do some good coaching and leading by bringing marshal back into the fold and being a stellar player, Belichick did it with Randy Moss. Or is McDaniels so bad at coaching he can only deal with players who need no coaching? Or spirited players, or players with heart, or personality, competitive edge... etc. At some point (actually at every point) the coach is responsible for the makeup and attitude of his team. If there is a general feeling of malaise and lack of enthusiasm in bronco land, it's up to McDaniels to fix. Or we could just keep throwing away super quality players because he lacks the ability to work with them. I'm sure there are hundreds of guys who got all the way up to the professional ranks because they didn't have eego and attitude about their abilities... sarcasm! Very many of the qualities you all see as failings are mandatory for greatness.

It just may be that other players don't view the Broncos organization in the same light as you do . . .

-----

Thnikkaman
08-25-2009, 03:36 PM
I just want to win. I think overall we have hurt our chances at winning. :D If its a bad Bronco year, I will get more yardwork done.

I think candy is delicious. What do you think?

p.s. I miss your e-mails.

----------------
Now playing: rae & christian feat. kate rogers – not just anybody (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/rae+%26+christian+feat.+kate+rogers/track/not+just+anybody)
via FoxyTunes (http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/)

Gimpygod
08-25-2009, 03:55 PM
It just may be that other players don't view the Broncos organization in the same light as you do . . .

-----

Of that I'm absolutely certain you are correct. Gaffney (Another crony acquisition), Paxton and Grossman are the first three who come to mind.

topscribe
08-25-2009, 05:08 PM
Of that I'm absolutely certain you are correct. Gaffney (Another crony acquisition), Paxton and Grossman are the first three who come to mind.

Gaffney has turned out to be a quality receiver and a great teacher for the younger ones.

We have learned that Paxton has skills and abilities uncommon to long snappers.

Uh . . . Grossman? :confused:

-----

Lonestar
08-25-2009, 05:55 PM
Gaffney has turned out to be a quality receiver and a great teacher for the younger ones.

We have learned that Paxton has skills and abilities uncommon to long snappers.

Uh . . . Grossman? :confused:

-----


think he is referring to KO..

topscribe
08-25-2009, 06:04 PM
think he is referring to KO..

If that's the case, I believe he just made my point with all three examples . . .

-----

rcsodak
08-25-2009, 10:45 PM
Again... although we've seen some interesting perspectives from players, I think we are seeing just as much immaturity from our coach. A young guy that is trying VERY VERY hard to PUSH his authority. We can go back and forth on whether you think thats good or bad.... but I'll say this. I would much rather WIN a Super Bowl with snot-nosed, grouchy, thug, bratty, baby, whiny, arrogant, GOOD players than sit at home with " nice guys."

The really good coaches (leaders), learn how to get along and DEAL with all kinds of personalities as opposed to simply trying to MAKE them all the same kind of person by demanding this and that.

These guys on the football field aren't "old" mature people most of the time. They are young, brash, out of college with women and money, and they are arrogant. WE were young and arrogant without the money and the fame that they had at that time. We can't simply expect a big paycheck to change who/what they are. That takes time. In the meantime, we need a leader that can deal with all kinds.

Right now, we have to deal with the immaturity of our young players, and the immaturity of our coach. Thats a tough combo.

Teams don't win when the tail wags the dog, Rav.

And if a HC has to 'be nice' to the players for them to 'play for him', then those players need to hit the road.

It's called an employer/employee contract: the employer pays you to learn/master your job.

And the last team that had "snot-nosed, grouchy, thug, bratty, baby, whiney, arrogant" players, resided in Oakland. Haven't seen too many SB's come out of there lately.

rcsodak
08-25-2009, 11:00 PM
First off.. I still dont' know what Coughlin having a ring has ANYTHING to do with these two coaches making their statements considering Billick has one and Schottenheimer is a GREAT coach.
Wow...you STILL have that mancrush on Schotty, don't you! lmao

I sure hope denver gets a head coach that bounces around from team to team....by way of getting fired.....and can never win playoff games, let alone SB's. :tsk:


Bring back schotty! Bring back schotty! Bring back schotty!

:beer:

rcsodak
08-26-2009, 01:24 PM
I wasn't talking about contract. I was talking about the two egos. McD needs to be a coach not some guy on an ego trip.



If you don't think Marshall will be productive in this offense you are blind. A team puts it's best plays on the field regardless of personal issues that coach may have with a player. Saying that Marshall should be running with at least the 2nd team to get more 1 on 1 coaching instead of scout team and special teams where there is none of that.



Again Marshall is a football player and will produce in any system in the NFL. He will produce in this system giving the chance. I agree he needs to pull his head out his ass but McD needs to let personal issues go and be a coach.

I know I , and possibly others, would REALLY like to see this evidence of where McD has "personal issues" with BMarsh. From everything I've heard/read, he has nothing to say but accolades, and progress in the system.

But I'm sure we'll all agree with you after you show us your proof. ;)

rcsodak
08-26-2009, 01:32 PM
He's supporting Marshall by sticking him on the scout team D, special teams, and scout team O? It takes 2 and frankly they are both to blame.
Maybe he should have thought about that when he decided to not show up along with the rest of the team. He's WAY behind in learning the offense, and I'd say since he wasn't going to be ready for the game, and healthy enough to practice, finally, I'm thinking McD decided to use him to ASSIST the team in it's preparation.

Explain how that's wrong?

claymore
08-26-2009, 01:34 PM
Gaffney has turned out to be a quality receiver and a great teacher for the younger ones.

We have learned that Paxton has skills and abilities uncommon to long snappers.

Uh . . . Grossman? :confused:

-----

:pound:

rcsodak
08-26-2009, 01:45 PM
Cutler didn't have a whole lot of leverage either, which is why so many thought the Broncos should have played hard ball rather than cave.

However, the big difference is there was a long list of teams lining up for Cutler, where with Marshall's hip injury and off-field problems, he's a much bigger risk.

Not true, Tned.....at least not in the eyes of past GM's/HC's.

You can win without a WR that's a headcase.

TXBRONC
08-26-2009, 01:50 PM
Not true, Tned.....at least not in the eyes of past GM's/HC's.

You can win without a WR that's a headcase.

No Cutler didn't have any leverage because he was under contract.

rcsodak
08-26-2009, 02:06 PM
You don't reward your child for pouting.

Why is it that the anti-McDaniels crowd can't see that their bias is infecting their thought process?

Because it runs so deep!

A skunk doesn't think it smells...

(and yes, I asked one)

rcsodak
08-26-2009, 02:08 PM
We're completely forgetting the fact that McD has nothing to do with Marshall getting a contract.

McD=GWBush

....nuff said

claymore
08-26-2009, 02:11 PM
McD=GWBush

....nuff said

I would say he resembles Obama. Promised hope and change. Instead he mortgaged our future.

rcsodak
08-26-2009, 02:22 PM
Why is it that anyone that doesn't gush incesitantly, bash Shanahan and God forbid, question a move or two is anti-McDaniels.

It's BS, to be honest. Bluster.

I am by NO means anti-McDaniels. I was just called a McDaniels appologist on Mania :lol: I love when I am labled two sides of the coin at the same time. :laugh:

Now, I am going to simply quote you, to point out the flip side:

"Why is it that the _______ crowd can't see that their bias is infecting their thought process?"

Now, replace _____ with Pro-McDaniels, or anti-cutler or anti-marshall and your sentence is just as accurate.

Are you guys going to sit there and 'honestly' tell me your own bias doesn't come into play on how you view this situation and what you post?

Well.....caustically speaking.....

1. Cutler played the 'whiney' card, and would have been a cancer
2. Bmarsh is attempting to follow suit
3. McD STILL hasn't coached a regular season game, or blown a game, to receive his attacks.

Looks like only the 2 obvious names to actually fit your bill are the players.

HORSEPOWER 56
08-26-2009, 02:25 PM
Again i ask...WTF does McD have to do with Marshall not getting paid, getting upset with the PR dept and training staff and being hurt?

NOTHING!!!!

Umm, by putting him on the scout team and not getting him the reps he needs to "learn the playbook", while at the same time talking a completely different game to the media. Just admit it, McDaniels is far from "honest" about just about anything he's said so far this offseason. From Cutler, to Marshall, to Dawkins' injury, he just can't seem to open his mouth and tell the whole truth. If we can see it and the media can see it, the players can see it.

How long would you work for a liar, especially if you knew there were options elsewhere?

Right now, I've got a feeling that Gimpygod is correct in thinking the only guys safe on our roster are Gaffney, Jordan, and the other ex-Patriot trash he brought with him.

rcsodak
08-26-2009, 02:27 PM
Okay, I'll answer. Remember how many stellar players were willing to renegotiate and restructure their contracts so they could play under someone they respected like Shanahan? Well, if you're playing for a jack off, like McDaniels, you at least want the pay to be good.

Your bias is painfully obvious.

Unwarranted.....but obvious.

Lonestar
08-26-2009, 02:28 PM
Umm, by putting him on the scout team and not getting him the reps he needs to "learn the playbook", while at the same time talking a completely different game to the media. Just admit it, McDaniels is far from "honest" about just about anything he's said so far this offseason. From Cutler, to Marshall, to Dawkins' injury, he just can't seem to open his mouth and tell the whole truth. If we can see it and the media can see it, the players can see it.

How long would you work for a liar, especially if you knew there were options elsewhere?

Right now, I've got a feeling that Gimpygod is correct in thinking the only guys safe on our roster are Gaffney, Jordan, and the other ex-Patriot trash he brought with him.


where are those options? the moron is under contract to DEN.. time he realizes that..

rcsodak
08-26-2009, 02:33 PM
So you are saying that you are perfectly rational in believing human beings will work just as hard for someone they don't like and don't trust? Nope

Again.....where's the proof the players "don't like and don't trust" McD?

Ravage!!!
08-26-2009, 02:34 PM
One traded QB and one WR doing his best to get traded.

HORSEPOWER 56
08-26-2009, 02:37 PM
where are those options? the moron is under contract to DEN.. time he realizes that..

You're absolutely correct, but time is on Marshall's side. He's young. He sits this year and plays "scout team" in practice, heals up, gets out of his contract at the end of the year, gets signed by the Bears in the offseason to a one-year deal, lights it up with 100+ catches next year with Cutler, and gets his big-time contract...

We get Jabar Gaffney! :elefant:

How's that sound?

claymore
08-26-2009, 02:39 PM
Again.....where's the proof the players "don't like and don't trust" McD?


One traded QB and one WR doing his best to get traded.

Josinda Andeson said there was another starter that was sick of shit.

TXBRONC
08-26-2009, 02:45 PM
You're absolutely correct, but time is on Marshall's side. He's young. He sits this year and plays "scout team" in practice, heals up, gets out of his contract at the end of the year, gets signed by the Bears in the offseason to a one-year deal, lights it up with 100+ catches next year with Cutler, and gets his big-time contract...

We get Jabar Gaffney! :elefant:

How's that sound?

Top thinks that Gaffney has proven to be a quality receiver. I don't know exactly what he means by that but career stats suggest he's nothing more than a 4th option.

rcsodak
08-26-2009, 02:51 PM
And you think it's reasonable to believe Shanahaan was never going to win more than seven games per season... ever?:confused: The guy who got reporters to call Jake Plummer "no mistake Jake?" I'm with Claymore, I was concerned yet excited about the prospects of a coaching change. What's really killing me is, "you inherit the second-ranked offense in the NFL and a god-awful defense. What's the first thing you do? Nuke the offense obviously silly." Again, all of your "reasonable" support of McDaniels is based on what? He was a coordinator for a pretty damn good team (psst, they were good because they have good players) and he is wicked goodat creating an environment that alienates talent and makes rabid bronco fans show up in fewer numbers to training camp and boo the ineptitude of the new squad. Note, all of the other coordinators from the same team have failed at head-coaching. That is not very rational.

Your first fallacy, is saying denver had "the second-ranked offense in the NFL".
Yards gained in a game don't mean squat! Last I saw, it was points scored.
Cutler has NEVER been on a winning team. I wonder if he knows how to get there.

Also, saying the pats had "good players", is rationalizing that somehow McD CAN'T duplicate this feat? Looks to me like he's trying, by dumping shit players for ones he personally knows are better.

And since when does it make rational sense to justify his failing simply because others have? Is it somehow in the water they all drank? :confused:

Lonestar
08-26-2009, 02:51 PM
You're absolutely correct, but time is on Marshall's side. He's young. He sits this year and plays "scout team" in practice, heals up, gets out of his contract at the end of the year, gets signed by the Bears in the offseason to a one-year deal, lights it up with 100+ catches next year with Cutler, and gets his big-time contract...

We get Jabar Gaffney! :elefant:

How's that sound?

but your wrong and if your his agent then you are doing him a disservice..

as it stand the CBA considers him a RFA through 2010 with his salary next year at about 3.2-3.3 mil.. Also saw from a reliable source that has been called not true that his salary as a RFA in 2011 would be about 3.5.. after that under the current CBA two years as a franchise tagged player

so he could be as it stand right now a real UFA in the year 2014 (2013 if the source is wrong).. a far cry from being signed anywhere.. next season.. since he would be a RFA the team tendering him a contract would have to give up there #1 and #4 and we can still meet the offer and give him the same contract..

if the moron wants to get out of DEN he is not doing much to make it possible.. he should get smart and make the broncos want to keep him OR other teams to make them an offer they can't refuse..

Ravage!!!
08-26-2009, 02:52 PM
why would the team want him or even THINK about putting a franchise tag on him if they aren't willing to give him a bigger contract??? :confused:

Hell.. if they are so tired of him, why would the broncos want to keep him through 2011-2014?

HORSEPOWER 56
08-26-2009, 02:54 PM
Top thinks that Gaffney has proven to be a quality receiver. I don't know exactly what he means by that but career stats suggest he's nothing more than a 4th option.

Obviously Gaffney is NOT a "quality" receiver. The Pats had Gaffney, he was sooo good in McD's and Bellicheat's "system" that they went out and dropped a second rounder on Wes Welker and a 4th on Randy Moss. Then they felt no issues letting him "get stolen away" by the Broncos. Quality, obviously. :confused:

Gaffney (obviously) = Championship. :tsk:

Tned
08-26-2009, 02:56 PM
Not true, Tned.....at least not in the eyes of past GM's/HC's.

You can win without a WR that's a headcase.

Virtually every ex-player/coach talking head I have seen or heard, said the Broncos were crazy for trading Jay and that with three years left on his contract, he had no leverage.

What was his leverage, sit out, not get paid, and not get a year of service towards free agency?

I don't want to rehash should he/should't he have been traded, but when it is brought up that he had more leverage, it simply isn't true. Did he have more trade value, which made it more enticing to trade him? Yes, but that he had less 'leverage' than Marshall, who only has one year left on his contract.

claymore
08-26-2009, 02:58 PM
Virtually every ex-player/coach talking head I have seen or heard, said the Broncos were crazy for trading Jay and that with three years left on his contract, he had no leverage.

What was his leverage, sit out, not get paid, and not get a year of service towards free agency?

I don't want to rehash should he/should't he have been traded, but when it is brought up that he had more leverage, it simply isn't true. Did he have more trade value, which made it more enticing to trade him? Yes, but that he had less 'leverage' than Marshall, who only has one year left on his contract.

That and it was a once in a lifetime trade for whoever pulled it off. I wish we would have got Forte out of the deal instead of Orton.

Tned
08-26-2009, 03:03 PM
why would the team want him or even THINK about putting a franchise tag on him if they aren't willing to give him a bigger contract??? :confused:

Hell.. if they are so tired of him, why would the broncos want to keep him through 2011-2014?

Because, that's what most teams not named Broncos, do. If a player and team can't come to agreement on a long term contract, but the player is one of the top talents at his position, they franchise him, which locks him up for the year. The offset the player's union demanded was that the franchised player gets the average of top 5 (or might be 3) at his position.



but your wrong and if your his agent then you are doing him a disservice..

as it stand the CBA considers him a RFA through 2010 with his salary next year at about 3.2-3.3 mil.. Also saw from a reliable source that has been called not true that his salary as a RFA in 2011 would be about 3.5.. after that under the current CBA two years as a franchise tagged player

so he could be as it stand right now a real UFA in the year 2014 (2013 if the source is wrong).. a far cry from being signed anywhere.. next season.. since he would be a RFA the team tendering him a contract would have to give up there #1 and #4 and we can still meet the offer and give him the same contract..

if the moron wants to get out of DEN he is not doing much to make it possible.. he should get smart and make the broncos want to keep him OR other teams to make them an offer they can't refuse..

I have seen nothing in the CBA that says that he would still be an RFA in 2011, regardless of whether a new CBA is signed.

In essence, the CBA says that a player is a UFA after his 4th year of service, except in uncapped years, in which case it is after their 5th year of service. That means, whether 2011 is considered a capped or uncapped year, he would be a UFA, unless they simply try and make the case that after 2010 all free agency is ended until a new CBA is negotiated.

If there is something that says he would be a RFA in 2011, I have not seen it.

HORSEPOWER 56
08-26-2009, 03:03 PM
but your wrong and if your his agent then you are doing him a disservice..

as it stand the CBA considers him a RFA through 2010 with his salary next year at about 3.2-3.3 mil.. Also saw from a reliable source that has been called not true that his salary as a RFA in 2011 would be about 3.5.. after that under the current CBA two years as a franchise tagged player

so he could be as it stand right now a real UFA in the year 2014 (2013 if the source is wrong).. a far cry from being signed anywhere.. next season.. since he would be a RFA the team tendering him a contract would have to give up there #1 and #4 and we can still meet the offer and give him the same contract..

if the moron wants to get out of DEN he is not doing much to make it possible.. he should get smart and make the broncos want to keep him OR other teams to make them an offer they can't refuse..


All very true, but if we franchise tag him and don't get any offers then we get to pay him the average of the top 3 WRs in the game that year (assuming he signs his tender). Sounds a little dumb for a guy we're trying to get rid of, don't it? That's a TON of cap space eaten up by Marshall in an attempt to force other teams to give us what we want.

At that point we are at the mercy of Marshall and other interested teams as to what we can get. Wouldn't it be a pisser if the best we got offered was a 3rd rounder (which is well below his value) or we get to eat his huge cap hit?

Worse case for Marshall is that he gets traded to a team (right now) that wants him to prove himself prior to getting paid, best case is for him to wait us out and eventually get exactly what he wants - a franchise tag or a straight up release from his contract.

Tned
08-26-2009, 03:04 PM
That and it was a once in a lifetime trade for whoever pulled it off. I wish we would have got Forte out of the deal instead of Orton.

I believe either Scheffter or King said there were around ten teams that were interested and considering the two first round price tag, but that Denver wanted a QB back and didn't want Detroits #1 pick, which limited the teams it would deal with.

topscribe
08-26-2009, 03:05 PM
That and it was a once in a lifetime trade for whoever pulled it off. I wish we would have got Forte out of the deal instead of Orton.

We got Moreno and Orton. :whoknows:

-----

claymore
08-26-2009, 03:10 PM
We got Moreno and Orton. :whoknows:

-----

Id rather of had Forte, Orakpo, and Ayers.

topscribe
08-26-2009, 03:12 PM
Top thinks that Gaffney has proven to be a quality receiver. I don't know exactly what he means by that but career stats suggest he's nothing more than a 4th option.

I didn't say Gaffney was a superstar. Nor did I say he was an equivalent to Marshall.
He has proven to be consistent and reliable. He is a good teacher and leader to
the younger ones among the receivers and a good locker room presence. He is
starting ahead of Lloyd, who was a starter for the Bears last year, when healthy.
If Gaffney is to be the 4th option on the Broncos, that will reveal he is a quality
receiver, considering the depth there.


I hope that clears it up.

-----

HORSEPOWER 56
08-26-2009, 03:13 PM
We got Moreno and Orton. :whoknows:

-----

True, and I'm thrilled about Moreno's potential, but with Forte, we could've saved the Moreno pick and drafted a real QB for the future or more D-line. Say what you want, but until he proves otherwise, Orton is who we think he is - average at best. Losing Marshall too will immediately make Orton below average - Eddie Royal can't catch every pass and Gaffney is NOT an acceptable substitute for Marshall.

I just can't throw myself into this Kyle Orton love fest without some proof that he can be effective. I have yet to see it.

rcsodak
08-26-2009, 03:13 PM
Its not worth arguing. Ive given up. We can all scream at JMCD in unison if he sucks. And Cry tears in our beers if Cutler goes to the HOF.

So whether a player that happened to play for denver at one time in his career gets to the HoF in the next 10-20yrs, is how you're going to live your life?

That makes sense.....


....but I sure won't be thinking about ex-players and 'what-could-have-beens' in 2029`. :D

topscribe
08-26-2009, 03:14 PM
Id rather of had Forte, Orakpo, and Ayers.

I would love to have Orakpo, but I'm not sure what Forte did last year that was
anything special. We also have to see what Moreno is going to do, of course,
but he is a RB without weakness, physically, and I believe he will be at least
everything Forte was last year. A RB has to average more than Forte's 3.9 YPC
to impress me as anything special. So we'll see . . .

-----

TXBRONC
08-26-2009, 03:16 PM
I didn't say Gaffney was a superstar. Nor did I say he was an equivalent to Marshall.
He has proven to be consistent and reliable. He is a good teacher and leader to
the younger ones among the receivers and a good locker room presence. He is
starting ahead of Lloyd, who was a starter for the Bears last year, when healthy.
If Gaffney is to be the 4th option on the Broncos, that will reveal he is a quality
receiver, considering the depth there.


I hope that clears it up.

-----

Where did I suggest that you thought Gaffney is a superstar or an equivalent to Marshall?

HORSEPOWER 56
08-26-2009, 03:17 PM
I didn't say Gaffney was a superstar. Nor did I say he was an equivalent to Marshall.
He has proven to be consistent and reliable. He is a good teacher and leader to
the younger ones among the receivers and a good locker room presence. He is
starting ahead of Lloyd, who was a starter for the Bears last year, when healthy.
If Gaffney is to be the 4th option on the Broncos, that will reveal he is a quality
receiver, considering the depth there.


I hope that clears it up.

-----

I hope I'm not taking this out of context, but I can't see the whole "consistent and reliable" thing. He played his way out of Houston (lost his job to some no name opposite of Andre MF Johnson) and was shown the door in New England after Randy and Wes arrived. If he was so reliable, wouldn't the Pats want to keep him in case something happened to Moss or Welker? It's not like he's a big hit on the cap.

TXBRONC
08-26-2009, 03:18 PM
I hope I'm not taking this out of context, but I can't see the whole "consistent and reliable" thing. He played his way out of Houston (lost his job to some no name opposite of Andre MF Johnson) and was shown the door in New England after Randy and Wes arrived. If he was so reliable, wouldn't the Pats want to keep him in case something happened to Moss or Welker? It's not like he's a big hit on the cap.

Excellent point.

topscribe
08-26-2009, 03:19 PM
Where did I suggest that you thought Gaffney is a superstar or an equivalent to Marshall?

C'mon, TX, stop pissing with me. Did I suggest that you suggested that Gaffney
is a superstar or equivalent to Marshall? Or did I just generically make the
statement? You are inserting your own thoughts into my post and then taking
exception to it . . .

-----

claymore
08-26-2009, 03:19 PM
So whether a player that happened to play for denver at one time in his career gets to the HoF in the next 10-20yrs, is how you're going to live your life?

That makes sense.....


....but I sure won't be thinking about ex-players and 'what-could-have-beens' in 2029`. :D

Im sure you never got mad at a draft pick we could have had.

rcsodak
08-26-2009, 03:20 PM
think he is referring to KO..

But he was brought in on a trade...not as a FA. Surely he knows the name of the starting QB?! :confused:

topscribe
08-26-2009, 03:22 PM
I hope I'm not taking this out of context, but I can't see the whole "consistent and reliable" thing. He played his way out of Houston (lost his job to some no name opposite of Andre MF Johnson) and was shown the door in New England after Randy and Wes arrived. If he was so reliable, wouldn't the Pats want to keep him in case something happened to Moss or Welker? It's not like he's a big hit on the cap.

Good for you. I believe Gaffney is quality, and you don't. Gaffney has been
starting. So who appears to be more accurate here? Garbage does not start
on this WR corps. It's too talented, top to bottom, even without Marshall.

-----

HORSEPOWER 56
08-26-2009, 03:25 PM
Good for you. I believe Gaffney is quality, and you don't. Gaffney has been
starting. So who appears to be more accurate here? Garbage does not start
on this WR corps. It's too talented, top to bottom, even without Marshall.

-----

Actually, Garbage that is ex-Patriot starts over other Bronco players in this offense. How else can you justify Gaffney over Stokely, Jordan over Hillis, and whatever-his-name-is longsnapper over Leach (who was cut to make room)?

rcsodak
08-26-2009, 03:26 PM
No Cutler didn't have any leverage because he was under contract.


Didn't SAY he had leverage, Tx.

But you don't win games with a qb that doesn't WANT to play for the HC/team/teammates. He touches the ball EVERY offensive snap, in case you forgot. The WR? Only when he's open (unless it's cutler throwing it). (yes, that was a dig...but I'm caustic, so......) :D

Ravage!!!
08-26-2009, 03:26 PM
Our WR corp without Marshall in the lineup is NOT overly talented. Its not. Marshall and ROyal are it. Stokely is good out of the slot, but can't play out wide. Who else is there that's talented?

rcsodak
08-26-2009, 03:29 PM
I would say he resembles Obama. Promised hope and change. Instead he mortgaged our future.

Well, I had the option of either one.

GWB WAS unrelentingly blamed for everything bad in the world.

I was afraid if I went your route, though, I'd be labeled a racist.;)

topscribe
08-26-2009, 03:30 PM
Actually, Garbage that is ex-Patriot starts over other Bronco players in this offense. How else can you justify Gaffney over Stokely, Jordan over Hillis, and whatever-his-name-is longsnapper over Leach (who was cut to make room)?

Since when is Gaffney over Stokley? Stokley is the slot receiver . . . some think
the best in the business. Gaffney has not been playing slot.

Paxton is the best in the business. Period. I did not agree with that deal, but he
is still better than Leach.

And who said Jordan is over Hillis? Do you think Hillis is garbage now?

Do you really believe what you have been saying?

-----

topscribe
08-26-2009, 03:31 PM
Our WR corp without Marshall in the lineup is NOT overly talented. Its not. Marshall and ROyal are it. Stokely is good out of the slot, but can't play out wide. Who else is there that's talented?

I guess, Rav, you need to start paying attention to reports . . .

-----

TXBRONC
08-26-2009, 03:32 PM
C'mon, TX, stop pissing with me. Did I suggest that you suggested that Gaffney
is a superstar or equivalent to Marshall? Or did I just generically make the
statement? You are inserting your own thoughts into my post and then taking
exception to it . . .

-----

I didn't misrepresnt what you said I just used as a waying of agreeing HP that Gaffney isn't quality depth. I'm not the first do that and I doubt I'll be the last.

HORSEPOWER 56
08-26-2009, 03:36 PM
Since when is Gaffney over Stokley? Stokley is the slot receiver . . . some think
the best in the business. Gaffney has not been playing slot.

Paxton is the best in the business. Period. I did not agree with that deal, but he
is still better than Leach.

And who said Jordan is over Hillis? Do you think Hillis is garbage now?

Do you really believe what you have been saying?

-----

Strange, I can't think of one bad snap by Leach. Lonnie Paxton has had a couple. Jordan is #2 on the depth chart behind Buckhalter - Hillis is #3. Stokely is a much better receiver - even lined up wide, than Gaffney is. When 2 WRs are on the field, it's Gaffney and Royal.

Even if Marshall comes back, resumes his starting spot, and all is forgiven, I would be willing to bet you a paycheck that Gaffney will line up wide with Marshall on 2 WR sets and Royal will become our new "slot machine". McD is just too confident and proud in his "system" and his guys not to make it so.

topscribe
08-26-2009, 03:37 PM
I didn't misrepresnt what you said I just used as a waying of agreeing HP that Gaffney isn't quality depth. I'm not the first do that and I doubt I'll be the last.

Okay, before I know how to answer you, are you talking about me or Gaffney here?

-----

topscribe
08-26-2009, 03:39 PM
Strange, I can't think of one bad snap by Leach. Lonnie Paxton has had a couple. Jordan is #2 on the depth chart behind Buckhalter - Hillis is #3. Stokely is a much better receiver - even lined up wide, than Gaffney is. When 2 WRs are on the field, it's Gaffney and Royal.

Even if Marshall comes back, resumes his starting spot, and all is forgiven, I would be willing to bet you a paycheck that Gaffney will line up wide with Marshall on 2 WR sets and Royal will become our new "slot machine". McD is just too confident and proud in his "system" and his guys not to make it so.

You know, you are waging an argument you need to take up with the Broncos'
coaching staff and front office. I don't mean any disrespect, but I do consider
their opinions more highly than I do yours.

-----

rcsodak
08-26-2009, 03:40 PM
One traded QB and one WR doing his best to get traded.

Hey, I know this game!!!!!

WHAT IS REASONS TO BE OPTIMISTIC ABOUT THE BRONCOS FUTURE for $500?


or



Did you mean for this to be a Tweet or something? :confused:

claymore
08-26-2009, 03:42 PM
Hey, I know this game!!!!!

WHAT IS REASONS TO BE OPTIMISTIC ABOUT THE BRONCOS FUTURE for $500?


or



Did you mean for this to be a Tweet or something? :confused:

Ill take Our 2011 draft pick for 500 alex.

rcsodak
08-26-2009, 03:42 PM
You're absolutely correct, but time is on Marshall's side. He's young. He sits this year and plays "scout team" in practice, heals up, gets out of his contract at the end of the year, gets signed by the Bears in the offseason to a one-year deal, lights it up with 100+ catches next year with Cutler, and gets his big-time contract...

We get Jabar Gaffney! :elefant:

How's that sound?

1 Problemo...

...he doens't play this year, he goes where Denver sends/keeps him.

HORSEPOWER 56
08-26-2009, 03:46 PM
You know, you are waging an argument you need to take up with the Broncos'
coaching staff and front office. I don't mean any disrespect, but I do consider
their opinions more highly than I do yours.

-----

I completely understand, top. No hard feelings here. I'm just stating what I've seen of Gaffney throughout his career and what I've seen from McD so far. It seems like if you're an ex-Patriot or an over paid FA that McD brought in, you get a pass on your performance, if you are a Bronco from prior years, you're fighting to keep your job.

Why do I think if it had been anyone other than Gaffney that dropped that TD pass last week that he'd be relegated to the scout team this week in practice? I'm exaggerating of course, but I've seen nothing to warrant Gaffney being given the starting spot over anyone else other than "he knows the system".

rcsodak
08-26-2009, 03:47 PM
Josinda Andeson said there was another starter that was sick of shit.

Who? Some hack? lmao

I'll wait to hear it from that player's mouth....

...or schefter, thank you. :rolleyes:

TXBRONC
08-26-2009, 03:49 PM
I completely understand, top. No hard feelings here. I'm just stating what I've seen of Gaffney throughout his career and what I've seen from McD so far. It seems like if you're an ex-Patriot or an over paid FA that McD brought in, you get a pass on your performance, if you are a Bronco from prior years, you're fighting to keep your job.

Why do I think if it had been anyone other than Gaffney that dropped that TD pass last week that he'd be relegated to the scout team this week in practice? I'm exaggerating of course, but I've seen nothing to warrant Gaffney being given the starting spot over anyone else other than "he knows the system".

I think it will hinder the passing game if Gaffney one of the starters.

Ravage!!!
08-26-2009, 03:49 PM
I guess, Rav, you need to start paying attention to reports . . .

-----

what reports?? :lol: You didn't answer the question. We do NOT have quality recievers on the outside beyond Royal and Marshall. I remember hearing Bronco reports on LOTS of receivers coming out of camps and pre-season. Remember Matise???

Tell me who is so quality that it rings a bell of optimism for Gaffney to win the starting job over?

claymore
08-26-2009, 03:50 PM
Who? Some hack? lmao

I'll wait to hear it from that player's mouth....

...or schefter, thank you. :rolleyes:

A denver post reporter. And you will hear lots of it if we start losing.

rcsodak
08-26-2009, 03:52 PM
why would the team want him or even THINK about putting a franchise tag on him if they aren't willing to give him a bigger contract??? :confused:

Hell.. if they are so tired of him, why would the broncos want to keep him through 2011-2014?

:confused: Glad we're both confused....


...because you certainly can't be serious, or that naive.. :rolleyes:

Tned
08-26-2009, 03:53 PM
We got Moreno and Orton. :whoknows:

-----

We drafted Moreno, but it wasn't with the Chicago picks. Who knows what McDaniels would have done with only one first rounder, but judging by the rest of his draft, he likely would have taken Moreno regardless, and then we would be sitting with Moreno and Cutler.

Who knows, but Moreno (nor his pick) wasn't part of the trade.


Who? Some hack? lmao

I'll wait to hear it from that player's mouth....

...or schefter, thank you. :rolleyes:

Vs. what us message board hacks say, when we don't talk to any players nor have any access. :lol:

I gotta say that I chuckle when we bash some of these reporters. They might not always get it right, but they have a lot more access and insight than us.

Ravage!!!
08-26-2009, 03:53 PM
Again.....where's the proof the players "don't like and don't trust" McD?


One traded QB and one WR doing his best to get traded.

I answered the very question you asked. YOu asked for proof that the players "don't like and don't trust" McD.

The fact that we had one franchise quality QB want out and now our stud WR wants out is proof that players (maybe not all) dont' like and/or trust McD.

topscribe
08-26-2009, 03:54 PM
what reports?? :lol: You didn't answer the question. We do NOT have quality recievers on the outside beyond Royal and Marshall. I remember hearing Bronco reports on LOTS of receivers coming out of camps and pre-season. Remember Matise???

Tell me who is so quality that it rings a bell of optimism for Gaffney to win the starting job over?

First of all, I did not say anything about Gaffney winning the starting job. I
guess you have missed all the fun, but the regular season is not here yet. Until
then, there are no "starters." It is a very "fluid" roster. Have you heard about
that? Or not.

And I don't feel like all the keystrokes it would take to repeat all that has
been said in all the reports. I suggest you run some forum searches on some
of the boards and check some of the news sites for starters.

That's what gets me: one researches one's ass off and forms opinions based
on their research, and others :lol: laugh at them . . .

-----

HORSEPOWER 56
08-26-2009, 03:54 PM
A denver post reporter. And you will hear lots of it if we start losing.

Don't you mean, when?

claymore
08-26-2009, 03:55 PM
We drafted Moreno, but it wasn't with the Chicago picks. Who knows what McDaniels would have done with only one first rounder, but judging by the rest of his draft, he likely would have taken Moreno regardless, and then we would be sitting with Moreno and Cutler.

Who knows, but Moreno (nor his pick) wasn't part of the trade.



Vs. what us message board hacks say, when we don't talk to any players nor have any access. :lol:

I gotta say that I chuckle when we bash some of these reporters. They might not always get it right, but they have a lot more access and insight than us.
No kidding. Peter King, and Mark Kiszla are douche bags though Im standing firm on that one.

claymore
08-26-2009, 03:55 PM
Don't you mean, when?

Thats what I originally said, but I am holding some optimisim that Im wrong.

topscribe
08-26-2009, 03:57 PM
We drafted Moreno, but it wasn't with the Chicago picks. Who knows what McDaniels would have done with only one first rounder, but judging by the rest of his draft, he likely would have taken Moreno regardless, and then we would be sitting with Moreno and Cutler.

Who knows, but Moreno (nor his pick) wasn't part of the trade.


Yes, you're right. I'm aware of all the terms of the trade and how we got the
various players, but that was not my point . . .

-----

TXBRONC
08-26-2009, 03:58 PM
We drafted Moreno, but it wasn't with the Chicago picks. Who knows what McDaniels would have done with only one first rounder, but judging by the rest of his draft, he likely would have taken Moreno regardless, and then we would be sitting with Moreno and Cutler.

Who knows, but Moreno (nor his pick) wasn't part of the trade.



Vs. what us message board hacks say, when we don't talk to any players nor have any access. :lol:

I gotta say that I chuckle when we bash some of these reporters. They might not always get it right, but they have a lot more access and insight than us.

I've heard this gal that you have gotten a lot tweets from isn't the most reliable but it seems to she's been right on at least occassions recently.

Ravage!!!
08-26-2009, 04:00 PM
First of all, I did not say anything about Gaffney winning the starting job. I
guess you have missed all the fun, but the regular season is not here yet. Until
then, there are no "starters." It is a very "fluid" roster. Have you heard about
that? Or not.

And I don't feel like all the keystrokes it would take to repeat all that has
been said in all the reports. I suggest you run some forum searches on some
of the boards and check some of the news sites for starters.

That's what gets me: one researches one's ass off and forms opinions based
on their research, and others :lol: laugh at them . . .

-----

SO again.. you are refusing to answer the question and simply prefer to give me a sarcastic remark that avoids defending your very own statement.

I simply asked you to give me a name of a quality receiver that Gaffney has/could/would/might/possibly beat out for a starting role.. or back up spot?? Who? What quality? Lloyd???

You are the one that said that Gaffney is proving to be a 'quality and reliable receiver"... and then stated thats an accomplishment considering the quality of receivers on this team. But refuse to tell me who these quality people are.

ok.

rcsodak
08-26-2009, 04:04 PM
Obviously Gaffney is NOT a "quality" receiver. The Pats had Gaffney, he was sooo good in McD's and Bellicheat's "system" that they went out and dropped a second rounder on Wes Welker and a 4th on Randy Moss. Then they felt no issues letting him "get stolen away" by the Broncos. Quality, obviously. :confused:

Gaffney (obviously) = Championship. :tsk:

Does a person really have to list all of the past players that the Pats have cut, just to prove your folly?

I can list a few wr's that some would label as "quality"....as well as cb's....fg kicker....et al.

:coffee:

TXBRONC
08-26-2009, 04:05 PM
First of all, I did not say anything about Gaffney winning the starting job. I
guess you have missed all the fun, but the regular season is not here yet. Until
then, there are no "starters." It is a very "fluid" roster. Have you heard about
that? Or not.

And I don't feel like all the keystrokes it would take to repeat all that has
been said in all the reports. I suggest you run some forum searches on some
of the boards and check some of the news sites for starters.

That's what gets me: one researches one's ass off and forms opinions based
on their research, and others :lol: laugh at them . . .

-----

So Orton isn't the starting quarterback? :confused:

TXBRONC
08-26-2009, 04:06 PM
Does a person really have to list all of the past players that the Pats have cut, just to prove your folly?

I can list a few wr's that some would label as "quality"....as well as cb's....fg kicker....et al.

:coffee:

Well he wasn't talking a cornerbacks or field goal kickers so why don't you dazzle everyone with you knowledge of receiver that have left New England and have done well with another team?

topscribe
08-26-2009, 04:06 PM
SO again.. you are refusing to answer the question and simply prefer to give me a sarcastic remark that avoids defending your very own statement.

I simply asked you to give me a name of a quality receiver that Gaffney has/could/would/might/possibly beat out for a starting role.. or back up spot?? Who? What quality? Lloyd???

You are the one that said that Gaffney is proving to be a 'quality and reliable receiver"... and then stated thats an accomplishment considering the quality of receivers on this team. But refuse to tell me who these quality people are.

ok.

You heard (or read) me. If you chose not to follow reports, fine. If you want
me to give you a rundown on all I have read and heard these last few weeks,
we can discuss the price.

But, as I explained to HP56, if you want to debate Gaffney, you need to take
it up with McDaniels & co. He's playing for them, not me.

Oh, and this juvenile appeal to my vanity has no effect.

Now, moving right along . . .

----

rcsodak
08-26-2009, 04:08 PM
Virtually every ex-player/coach talking head I have seen or heard, said the Broncos were crazy for trading Jay and that with three years left on his contract, he had no leverage.

What was his leverage, sit out, not get paid, and not get a year of service towards free agency?

I don't want to rehash should he/should't he have been traded, but when it is brought up that he had more leverage, it simply isn't true. Did he have more trade value, which made it more enticing to trade him? Yes, but that he had less 'leverage' than Marshall, who only has one year left on his contract.

Again, I never said he had "leverage", so I'd appreciate you not put words in my mouth like less respected posters.

What I AM saying, is you don't go into a season with the LEADER of the offense UNHAPPY with his team, head coach, and everything else Denver.

But you CAN win games with a headcase for a WR.

topscribe
08-26-2009, 04:08 PM
So Orton isn't the starting quarterback? :confused:

For now . . . isn't that what McDaniels said? For now?

Damn, aren't we all being picky today? :coffee:

-----

TXBRONC
08-26-2009, 04:09 PM
Again, I never said he had "leverage", so I'd appreciate you not put words in my mouth like less respected posters.

What I AM saying, is you don't go into a season with the LEADER of the offense UNHAPPY with his team, head coach, and everything else Denver.

But you CAN win games with a headcase for a WR.

Yes you did RC.

Ravage!!!
08-26-2009, 04:11 PM
But, as I explained to HP56, if you want to debate Gaffney, you need to take
it up with McDaniels & co. He's playing for them, not me.



----

You were the one that I 'read' say was a quality and reliable WR.. as well as a good teacher. YOU typed that, not McDaniels.

But when I countered with a simple question as to WHO was the quality receivers that Gaffney is surpassing (as you suggested by saying thats pretty good considering the quality on the roster).... you won't give a name.

Thats fine, honestly. I already know there isn't much quality depth in our WR corp.

TXBRONC
08-26-2009, 04:12 PM
For now . . . isn't that what McDaniels said? For now?

Damn, aren't we all being picky today? :coffee:

-----

Come on Top you said there are no starters well that's not accurate.

topscribe
08-26-2009, 04:13 PM
I've got to back on out of here. Pissing matches popping up all around, like little
flames in a prairie fire. This is beginning to look like Broncomania . . . :wave:

-----

Tned
08-26-2009, 04:16 PM
Again, I never said he had "leverage", so I'd appreciate you not put words in my mouth like less respected posters.

What I AM saying, is you don't go into a season with the LEADER of the offense UNHAPPY with his team, head coach, and everything else Denver.

But you CAN win games with a headcase for a WR.

RC, if you didn't say that or mean it, I'm sorry. However, I didn't put words in your mouth.

In my post you quoted, you BOLDED "Cutler didn't have a whole lot of leverage either".

Then, the first sentence of your reply was...

"Not true, Tned.....at least not in the eyes of past GM's/HC's"

I know you went on to say "You can win without a WR that's a headcase", but considering the part of my post you bolded, and your "not true, tned", I think you can see that I didn't put any words in your mouth "like a less respected poster."

rcsodak
08-26-2009, 04:26 PM
I hope I'm not taking this out of context, but I can't see the whole "consistent and reliable" thing. He played his way out of Houston (lost his job to some no name opposite of Andre MF Johnson) and was shown the door in New England after Randy and Wes arrived. If he was so reliable, wouldn't the Pats want to keep him in case something happened to Moss or Welker? It's not like he's a big hit on the cap.

So is this how you get out of debating points???? By misdirection?

I don't believe ANYBODY said Gaff was a superstar, but he IS somebody that knows the new system, and not below the learning curve. THAT is why even McD HIMSELF said he brought him in. I could give you a quote if you'd like. ;)

rcsodak
08-26-2009, 04:35 PM
Im sure you never got mad at a draft pick we could have had.

Can't say I have, clay. It's not worth second guessing's and what-if's.

Besides...who's to say they don't get a clone of Brady/Manning in an upcoming draft, when they wouldn't have even been in the market, otherwise?

Frankly, life's too short to be worrying about draft-picks-gone-bad, or coulda-shoulda-woulda's. ;)

I'd rather watch the actual players on the roster play their hearts out, win-lose or draw.....


....then come back here and gripe. :lol:

HORSEPOWER 56
08-26-2009, 04:53 PM
So is this how you get out of debating points???? By misdirection?

I don't believe ANYBODY said Gaff was a superstar, but he IS somebody that knows the new system, and not below the learning curve. THAT is why even McD HIMSELF said he brought him in. I could give you a quote if you'd like. ;)

What "points" was I not debating by misdirection? Nobody said Gaff was a superstar. topscribe referred to him as "consistent and reliable". I was just curious as to his thought process that led him to that conclusion. I've always seen him as a backup/journeyman caliber WR.

Rod Smith was "consistent and reliable". Not a superstar, just Rod Smith. Eddie Royal proved himself "consistent and reliable" last year. Was he all world? No, but he helped the team because he proved he could be a "go-to-guy". Wes Welker is "consistent and reliable". He's a guy you knew was going to get the job done when he got targeted. He's not Jerry Rice, but he's very effective in his role.

I just don't see, and have never seen, Jabar Gaffney anywhere near the level of the guys listed above.

rcsodak
08-26-2009, 04:56 PM
A denver post reporter. And you will hear lots of it if we start losing.

Is that a prognostication, clay? Cuz there's been PLENTY of losing the last few years...and we haven't heard anything. :elefant:

TXBRONC
08-26-2009, 04:58 PM
What "points" was I not debating by misdirection? Nobody said Gaff was a superstar. topscribe referred to him as "consistent and reliable". I was just curious as to his thought process that led him to that conclusion. I've always seen him as a backup/journeyman caliber WR.

Rod Smith was "consistent and reliable". Not a superstar, just Rod Smith. Eddie Royal proved himself "consistent and reliable" last year. Was he all world? No, but he helped the team because he proved he could be a "go-to-guy". Wes Welker is "consistent and reliable". He's a guy you knew was going to get the job done when he got targeted. He's not Jerry Rice, but he's very effective in his role.

I just don't see, and have never seen, Jabar Gaffney anywhere near the level of the guys listed above.

Gaffney's stats do not measure up to being consistent and reliable.

topscribe
08-26-2009, 05:02 PM
What "points" was I not debating by misdirection? Nobody said Gaff was a superstar. topscribe referred to him as "consistent and reliable". I was just curious as to his thought process that led him to that conclusion. I've always seen him as a backup/journeyman caliber WR.

Rod Smith was "consistent and reliable". Not a superstar, just Rod Smith. Eddie Royal proved himself "consistent and reliable" last year. Was he all world? No, but he helped the team because he proved he could be a "go-to-guy". Wes Welker is "consistent and reliable". He's a guy you knew was going to get the job done when he got targeted. He's not Jerry Rice, but he's very effective in his role.

I just don't see, and have never seen, Jabar Gaffney anywhere near the level of the guys listed above.

"Consistent" means non-wavering, showing regularity, steady continuity.
"Reliable" means dependable, being where expected and doing what expected.

Hope that helps.

For future reference, I use Merriam-Webster as my standard. I found
nothing in there referring to "consistent" and "reliable" as first string . . .

-----

rcsodak
08-26-2009, 05:10 PM
I answered the very question you asked. YOu asked for proof that the players "don't like and don't trust" McD.

The fact that we had one franchise quality QB want out and now our stud WR wants out is proof that players (maybe not all) dont' like and/or trust McD.

Um, no, rav, you didn't answer it. At least not accurately.

How can players not like or trust what they don't know?

BMarsh was quoted as saying, IN THIS VERY THREAD, that he "didn't know" McD.
And as far as the trust thing goes with him? His hip thing was under SHANNY's watch, correct?

As for the ex qb, once the firings started happening, it looks to me like he lost his 'comfy zone', and was going to do/say anything he could, to get moved. Of course, nobody knows what happened behind closed doors, so either one of us saying we do, would just be disengenuous.

HORSEPOWER 56
08-26-2009, 05:19 PM
"Consistent" means non-wavering, showing regularity, steady continuity.
"Reliable" means dependable, being where expected and doing what expected.

Hope that helps.

For future reference, I use Merriam-Webster as my standard. I found
nothing in there referring to "consistent" and "reliable" as first string . . .

-----

Really, truly, honestly, I do understand the definition of both "reliable" and "consistent" as well as many other words commonly used in the English language. Thanks for the Reader's Digest abridged version of the definitions for me, though! :D

I just don't see it in Gaffney, that's all. Normally, teams don't part ways with "consistent and reliable" players unless they demand exorbitant (see I know big words, too!) sums of money. He's not big (average sized), not fast (I would say below average speed by today's standards), doesn't jump really high (average "ups"), doesn't run overly great routes (as evidenced by the fact that he's not open all the time and doesn't require double coverage to contain) and doesn't catch everything thrown his way (average at best hands).

If even one of the above categories were "excellent" he might be considered an "above average" WR by most standards. He doesn't, and is barely average.

Guys that have all of those skills (Calvin Johnson, Randy Moss, Larry Fitz) are Superstars. Guys that have a couple of those but not all (Eddie Royal, Wes Welker, Rod Smith, Hines Ward) are "consistent and reliable" in my book.

That's how I classify it. Maybe that clarifies my position... without getting all upset and smart alecky, that is. ;)

rcsodak
08-26-2009, 05:20 PM
Well he wasn't talking a cornerbacks or field goal kickers so why don't you dazzle everyone with you knowledge of receiver that have left New England and have done well with another team?

I would, tx, if I was addressing that to you. I'm sure you can find the same info I can. I believe my point was made. But make sure you look for "good" players that were allowed to leave.....that was the challenge I was replying to.
;)

TXBRONC
08-26-2009, 05:27 PM
I would, tx, if I was addressing that to you. I'm sure you can find the same info I can. I believe my point was made. But make sure you look for "good" players that were allowed to leave.....that was the challenge I was replying to.
;)

To bad. If you didn't want other people to respond then take it to a pm. Now you shot off about good wide receivers that have left New England but apparently you can't come with any can you?

claymore
08-26-2009, 05:28 PM
Can't say I have, clay. It's not worth second guessing's and what-if's.

Besides...who's to say they don't get a clone of Brady/Manning in an upcoming draft, when they wouldn't have even been in the market, otherwise?

Frankly, life's too short to be worrying about draft-picks-gone-bad, or coulda-shoulda-woulda's. ;)

I'd rather watch the actual players on the roster play their hearts out, win-lose or draw.....


....then come back here and gripe. :lol:

Fair enough. I am the opposite though.

Lonestar
08-26-2009, 05:28 PM
Because, that's what most teams not named Broncos, do. If a player and team can't come to agreement on a long term contract, but the player is one of the top talents at his position, they franchise him, which locks him up for the year. The offset the player's union demanded was that the franchised player gets the average of top 5 (or might be 3) at his position.




I have seen nothing in the CBA that says that he would still be an RFA in 2011, regardless of whether a new CBA is signed.

In essence, the CBA says that a player is a UFA after his 4th year of service, except in uncapped years, in which case it is after their 5th year of service. That means, whether 2011 is considered a capped or uncapped year, he would be a UFA, unless they simply try and make the case that after 2010 all free agency is ended until a new CBA is negotiated.

If there is something that says he would be a RFA in 2011, I have not seen it.

that was why I put the disclaimer in..

he would then be a franchise player the next two year 2011-12 if they wanted to hang on to him.. or wanted to use him as franchise bait for a draft choice or two..

in any case he will not be a UFA this coming year UNLESS they sign a new CBA before march.... he is our property until after next season then ours as RFA for 2010 and then for sure a franchise in 2011 and 2012 IF we want him that is..

it may all be moot when his hip goes out mid-season..

Ravage!!!
08-26-2009, 05:28 PM
Um, no, rav, you didn't answer it. At least not accurately.

How can players not like or trust what they don't know?

BMarsh was quoted as saying, IN THIS VERY THREAD, that he "didn't know" McD.
And as far as the trust thing goes with him? His hip thing was under SHANNY's watch, correct?

As for the ex qb, once the firings started happening, it looks to me like he lost his 'comfy zone', and was going to do/say anything he could, to get moved. Of course, nobody knows what happened behind closed doors, so either one of us saying we do, would just be disengenuous.

Perhaps you don't deal with a lot of people in your life.. but the reality is, people don't have to KNOW someone to not like them (or feel they don 't like them) and/or not trust them (or feel they don't trust them). That can be either by their personal perceptions, interactions, talks or simply observations on how they deal with OTHER people.

So tell me again, rc, how they "can't" dislike or mistrust McDaniels. Cutler certainly had reason not to trust McDaniels, and I'm guessing that Marshall has reasons of his own to either not trust, or not like, him.

topscribe
08-26-2009, 05:28 PM
Really, truly, honestly, I do understand the definition of both "reliable" and "consistent" as well as many other words commonly used in the English language. Thanks for the Reader's Digest abridged version of the definitions for me, though! :D

I just don't see it in Gaffney, that's all. Normally, teams don't part ways with "consistent and reliable" players unless they demand exorbitant (see I know big words, too!) sums of money. He's not big (average sized), not fast (I would say below average speed by today's standards), doesn't jump really high (average "ups"), doesn't run overly great routes (as evidenced by the fact that he's not open all the time and doesn't require double coverage to contain) and doesn't catch everything thrown his way (average at best hands).

If even one of the above categories were "excellent" he might be considered an "above average" WR by most standards. He doesn't, and is barely average.

Guys that have all of those skills (Calvin Johnson, Randy Moss, Larry Fitz) are Superstars. Guys that have a couple of those but not all (Eddie Royal, Wes Welker, Rod Smith, Hines Ward) are "consistent and reliable" in my book.

That's how I classify it. Maybe that clarifies my position... without getting all upset and smart alecky, that is. ;)

I'm having a hard time with equating big, fast, and not jumping high with
"consistent" and "reliable." I doubt that a thesaurus would equate them,
either.

If Gaffney is an "average" (whatever that is) player who can be counted on
to be relatively "consistent" and "reliable," then I'm comfortable with that,
even with him as a backup. Judging from the regularity with which they have
used him, they must figure Gaffney has some of those qualities.

Once again, I do believe your argument is actually with the coaches . . .

-----

Lonestar
08-26-2009, 05:32 PM
All very true, but if we franchise tag him and don't get any offers then we get to pay him the average of the top 3 WRs in the game that year (assuming he signs his tender). Sounds a little dumb for a guy we're trying to get rid of, don't it? That's a TON of cap space eaten up by Marshall in an attempt to force other teams to give us what we want.

At that point we are at the mercy of Marshall and other interested teams as to what we can get. Wouldn't it be a pisser if the best we got offered was a 3rd rounder (which is well below his value) or we get to eat his huge cap hit?

Worse case for Marshall is that he gets traded to a team (right now) that wants him to prove himself prior to getting paid, best case is for him to wait us out and eventually get exactly what he wants - a franchise tag or a straight up release from his contract.

IIRC it is the average of the top 5 at WR. and if they want him as trade bait he is then he is just that with NO guaranteed money or dead cap space in the future..

there is not cap hit on him unless we are dumb enough to offer him a signing bonus and a new contract..

Simple Jaded
08-26-2009, 05:32 PM
I CAN fault Orton for the left-handed toss. Keep the ball get as many yards as you can and back them up against their endzone. Don't give them the 20. Trade Marshall before his stock drops so far that we can't get rid of him.

Maybe if he weren't such an ordinary athlete he could have actually ran for a TD.......

Ravage!!!
08-26-2009, 05:33 PM
But using the best of what you have doesn't make you consistent and reliable. In fact, imo, if Gaffney is proving to be 'more' consistent and reliable than our other depth WRs, it would seem that we may be weaker at that depth than I had originally thought.

claymore
08-26-2009, 05:34 PM
But using the best of what you have doesn't make you consistent and reliable. In fact, imo, if Gaffney is proving to be 'more' consistent and reliable than our other depth WRs, it would seem that we may be weaker at that depth than I had originally thought.

Especially when Stokley will inevitably get hurt.

Ravage!!!
08-26-2009, 05:36 PM
Especially when Stokley will inevitably get hurt.

I know.. and I'm a big Stokely fan... WHEN he's healthy. I've hated it the last couple years when we absolutely needed him to step up and play the outside, and he inevitably gets hurt every time.

Simple Jaded
08-26-2009, 05:38 PM
Trading your best players is stupid even if you know in advance that everybody would stay healthy, especially considering that Orton will need every conceivable advantage he can get.......

topscribe
08-26-2009, 05:43 PM
But using the best of what you have doesn't make you consistent and reliable. In fact, imo, if Gaffney is proving to be 'more' consistent and reliable than our other depth WRs, it would seem that we may be weaker at that depth than I had originally thought.

Correction: You may envision them as a little weaker than you originally thought
(which does not necessarily coincide with what others may envision).

This last Saturday, Gaffney had 5 receptions for 55 yards. A little trivia now:
Who was the receiver of record in the first half, you know, when the Broncos
were rolling up and down the field?

-----

claymore
08-26-2009, 05:43 PM
I know.. and I'm a big Stokely fan... WHEN he's healthy. I've hated it the last couple years when we absolutely needed him to step up and play the outside, and he inevitably gets hurt every time.

We need to start an Injury prediction thread. I say Stokley, Champ at some point, 2 running backs, Sheffler, and Hillis.

claymore
08-26-2009, 05:44 PM
Correction: You may envision them as a little weaker than you originally thought
(which does not necessarily coincide with what others may envision).

This last Saturday, Gaffney had 5 receptions for 55 yards. A little trivia now:
Who was the receiver of record in the first half, you know, when the Broncos
were blowing up and down the field?

-----
Im glad your finally coming around. :D

topscribe
08-26-2009, 05:45 PM
We need to start an Injury prediction thread. I say Stokley, Champ at some point, 2 running backs, Sheffler, and Hillis.

Why Hillis? :confused:

-----

claymore
08-26-2009, 05:47 PM
Why Hillis? :confused:

-----

Because he will be overused by game three.

topscribe
08-26-2009, 05:48 PM
Because he will be overused by game three.

And on what do you base that conclusion?

-----

TXBRONC
08-26-2009, 05:50 PM
Correction: You may envision them as a little weaker than you originally thought
(which does not necessarily coincide with what others may envision).

This last Saturday, Gaffney had 5 receptions for 55 yards. A little trivia now:
Who was the receiver of record in the first half, you know, when the Broncos
were blowing up and down the field?

-----

And little trivia for you which receiver blew a for sure touchdown reception? I'll give you hit his initials are J.G.

claymore
08-26-2009, 05:50 PM
And on what do you base that conclusion?

-----

Because Orton cant complete a pass much further than the line of scrimmage.

topscribe
08-26-2009, 05:52 PM
And little trivia for you which receiver blew a for sure touchdown reception? I'll give you hit his initials are J.G.

Okay. Now, I would like for you to name a receiver who has never dropped a pass.

Just one please. That would do just fine . . . :coffee:

-----

topscribe
08-26-2009, 05:53 PM
Because Orton cant complete a pass much further than the line of scrimmage.

You might as well stop your discussion right here.

You just destroyed your credibility.

-----

claymore
08-26-2009, 05:54 PM
You might as well stop your discussion right here.

You just destroyed your credibility.

-----

Dont you sass me.

TXBRONC
08-26-2009, 05:55 PM
Okay. Now, I would like for you to name a receiver who has never dropped a pass.

Just one please. That would do just fine . . . :coffee:

-----

Can you not stick to the topic at hand? We're talking about Jabar Gaffney not every other freakin reciever in the League right?

topscribe
08-26-2009, 05:58 PM
Can you not stick to the topic at hand? We're talking about Jabar Gaffney not every other freakin reciever in the League right?

That wasn't even a good sidestep.

If you are going to bash Gaffney over one drop, then I would like for you to
name one single receiver who has never had a drop.

If you feel you must sidestep this question, then I have made my point . . . :coffee:

-----

TXBRONC
08-26-2009, 06:04 PM
That wasn't even a good sidestep.

If you are going to bash Gaffney over one drop, then I would like for you to
name one single receiver who has never had a drop.

If you feel you must sidestep this question, then I have made my point . . . :coffee:

-----

Right. You can't answer the questions instead you go into a narcissistic mode. Don't burn your tongue with that coffee. :lol:

topscribe
08-26-2009, 06:06 PM
Right. You can't answer the questions instead you go into a narcissistic mode. Don't burn your tongue with that coffee. :lol:

What question? I asked the question. You sidestepped. You brought up
Gaffney's drop, as if that defines him as a receiver. Now, all I would like to know
what receiver(s) has never dropped a pass. Jerry Rice? Rod Smith? Paul
Warfield? John Stallworth? Is there one? Anywhere?

-----

Hobe
08-26-2009, 08:57 PM
His agent works on commission/percentage of his contract.

Is that "per court appearance?"

topscribe
08-26-2009, 08:59 PM
Is that "per court appearance?"

:pound:

-----

rcsodak
08-26-2009, 11:53 PM
Yes you did RC.

Show me.

rcsodak
08-27-2009, 12:23 AM
To bad. If you didn't want other people to respond then take it to a pm. Now you shot off about good wide receivers that have left New England but apparently you can't come with any can you?

Just the opposite, Tx.

I think we both know the truth.

Irving Fryar - 5 PB's, 4 after he left NE.

Deion Branch - no PB's, but instrumental, reliable and consistent.

Want more examples...since they DO make my argument?

Assante Samuals

Ellis Hobbs

So, to summarize.....

...teams DO release/trade away good/reliable/consistent players....


...even the mighty Pats.

rcsodak
08-27-2009, 12:32 AM
Perhaps you don't deal with a lot of people in your life.. but the reality is, people don't have to KNOW someone to not like them (or feel they don 't like them) and/or not trust them (or feel they don't trust them). That can be either by their personal perceptions, interactions, talks or simply observations on how they deal with OTHER people.

So tell me again, rc, how they "can't" dislike or mistrust McDaniels. Cutler certainly had reason not to trust McDaniels, and I'm guessing that Marshall has reasons of his own to either not trust, or not like, him.

There you go again, rav.....ASSUMING!

And I love your sassiness.....brings back old times from 'mania. :rolleyes:

Oh, by the by....

.....maybe you should read the latest from your boi, jay. And how he says he 'didn't dislike' McD....and that he has a great offensive football mind...and how he thinks the team will be just fine.

But hey...you just keep going on believing what you want. You will anyway. :laugh::laugh:

rcsodak
08-27-2009, 12:38 AM
Can you not stick to the topic at hand? We're talking about Jabar Gaffney not every other freakin reciever in the League right?

Well, Tx, if you watched Law n Order, you'd KNOW that you opened yourself up to that question, by bringing it up.

Even Perry Mason, if that helps....:D

Besides....you never answered top's trivia question...unless your question was it.

tumbana
08-27-2009, 12:44 AM
Just the opposite, Tx.

I think we both know the truth.

Irving Fryar - 5 PB's, 4 after he left NE.

Deion Branch - no PB's, but instrumental, reliable and consistent.

Want more examples...since they DO make my argument?

Assante Samuals

Ellis Hobbs

So, to summarize.....

...teams DO release/trade away good/reliable/consistent players....


...even the mighty Pats.

They also make sure to bring in good/reliable/consistent players. they don't pick up career journeymen. Guys like Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Donte Stallworth (not on there anymore but he was a replacement to one of their receivers in 07). Shaun Springs, etc. Not to mention they have and will always keep Tom Brady who they build around.

They always bring in a quality vet with a track record to fill in. You don't trade away a guy like Brandon Marshall and then replace him with Jabar Gafney or Brandon Lloyd. You don't trade away a franchise QB and then bring in a mediocre Kylr Orto just because he can "fit the system," because system players believe it or not, are system players for a reason. They have major holes in their game and cannot be relied on unless they have a "system" that fits their strengths and only their strengths.

That being said I highly doubt they trade Brandon Marshall. As unhappy as he may seem, I think he will be playing week 1.

claymore
08-27-2009, 07:18 AM
Because he will be overused by game three.


And on what do you base that conclusion?

-----


Because Orton cant complete a pass much further than the line of scrimmage.


You might as well stop your discussion right here.

You just destroyed your credibility.

-----


To shore up kickoff return, Hillis receives plenty of reps
By Jeff Legwold
The Denver Post
Posted: 08/27/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT


True to his word, Broncos coach Josh McDaniels has looked at some additional kickoff returners this week.

Running back Peyton Hillis has spent plenty of time fielding kickoffs in practice. Hillis returned punts and kickoffs as a college player at Arkansas.

Rookie wide receiver Kenny McKinley bobbled a kickoff and fumbled another Saturday at Seattle. Rookie cornerback Alphonso Smith also bobbled a kickoff in the game.

JMCD needs to figure out how to use someone else. Hillis cant do everything.

Mike
08-27-2009, 08:24 AM
JMCD needs to figure out how to use someone else. Hillis cant do everything.

Hillis can...but he shouldn't. :D

rcsodak
08-27-2009, 10:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tned View Post
Cutler didn't have a whole lot of leverage either, which is why so many thought the Broncos should have played hard ball rather than cave.

However, the big difference is there was a long list of teams lining up for Cutler, where with Marshall's hip injury and off-fieldproblems, he's a much bigger risk.

Originally Posted by rcsodak:
Not true, Tned.....at least not in the eyes of past GM's/HC's.

You can win without a WR that's a headcase.

*edit*
Finally found my misnomer....

ok, in this post, I was trying to say that I've heard PLENTY of NFL guys, on Sirius especially, say that Denver needed to get rid of Cutler. He was going to be a cancer. They pretty much were evenly divided on fault, though I think more leaned on the qb's side.
No, cutler didn't have leverage...and I've said that all along. But leverage doesn't really matter when it comes down to the #1 guy on offense not wanting to be there. It just wouldn't be worth it.

So to this end, I was using the qb's situation, in comparison to BMarsh's. He doesn't have any leverage either, but the difference is he's just one of the wr's. He doesn't touch the ball EVERY offensive snap. If he's seen dogging it, he gets sat down, and another WR is brought in. He shoots himself in the foot. He is nowhere close to being in Moss' shoes, as far as talent, imho. Too few of years to compare, for one thing. So I don't see another Oak>Pats -like trade in his near future.
He needs to get his ass out there, and play like he has since he was drafted. Period.

Hope that makes my statements clear as mud. :confused:

TXBRONC
08-27-2009, 04:04 PM
Just the opposite, Tx.

I think we both know the truth.

Irving Fryar - 5 PB's, 4 after he left NE.

Deion Branch - no PB's, but instrumental, reliable and consistent.

Want more examples...since they DO make my argument?

Assante Samuals

Ellis Hobbs

So, to summarize.....

...teams DO release/trade away good/reliable/consistent players....


...even the mighty Pats.


You ignored it again. I was talking about receivers and I think most people would understand that I mean since Belichick became head coach. But since you meantioned Fryar, yes he was good receiver but let remind you that was before Belichick. At that point sure wasn't the might Pats were they? :coffee:I 'm sure knew that but you side stepped it.

Are you sure you want to go there with mentioning Branch? Branch has fallen short of being consistent and reliable since going to Seattle.

So the Pats let good and reliable player? But if you that every player that they good and reliable then you are sadly mistaken. Gaffney career indicates that he hasn't been that good and reliable. Good and reliable players are ones are usually starters.:coffee:

Gimpygod
08-27-2009, 05:15 PM
This entire statement (especially the bolded ones) shows me one of two things. Either you've never coached anything or your limited coaching experience was with very young children. if you had ever done anything else, you'd never make a ridiculous comment like this

and I argue that your statement shows you have either only coached children, high school or maybe (I doubt it) College. All places where the coach is an authoritarian figure... in the professionals you have grown men with enormous salaries and options so you have to use finesse. Of which McDaniels has none.....

TXBRONC
08-27-2009, 06:21 PM
and I argue that your statement shows you have either only coached children, high school or maybe (I doubt it) College. All places where the coach is an authoritarian figure... in the professionals you have grown men with enormous salaries and options so you have to use finesse. Of which McDaniels has none.....

Dean is/was a football coach. Dean has come to conclusions similar to yours.

MOtorboat
08-27-2009, 06:57 PM
and I argue that your statement shows you have either only coached children, high school or maybe (I doubt it) College. All places where the coach is an authoritarian figure... in the professionals you have grown men with enormous salaries and options so you have to use finesse. Of which McDaniels has none.....

Um, so you have to have "finesse" to win Super Bowls in this league, eh...can you show me the "finesse" that Bill Belicheck, Tom Coughlin, Mike Tomlin, Bill Cowher, Jon Gruden and Brian Billick have when dealing with players who expect to have a say in roster moves and trades?

Because they've won 8 of the last 9 Super Bowls.

Lonestar
08-27-2009, 07:34 PM
Um, so you have to have "finesse" to win Super Bowls in this league, eh...can you show me the "finesse" that Bill Belicheck, Tom Coughlin, Mike Tomlin, Bill Cowher, Jon Gruden and Brian Billick have when dealing with players who expect to have a say in roster moves and trades?

Because they've won 8 of the last 9 Super Bowls.

**cough** Tom Coughlin **cough**

yep he is a finesse guy alright..

MOtorboat
08-27-2009, 07:36 PM
**cough** Tom Coughlin **cough**

yep he is a finesse guy alright..

Hell, the one coach in the last nine years that has won a Super Bowl that I would say has shown any finesse at all is Tony Dungy, and he had a hard-ass GM, Bill Polian, making personnel decisions...

You don't finesse players. You don't let Jay Cutlers and Brandon Marshalls run your personnel decisions. It's not smart business, and it's not smart coaching. Any way you look at it.

Gimpygod
08-28-2009, 01:05 PM
Again.....where's the proof the players "don't like and don't trust" McD?

I'd say all the internal strife and pro bowlers not playing... if you want video I'm not able to provide that. Other than the players swatting balls out of the air and leaving town. Wait a minute, that's proof! You owe me five dollars or else Claymore gets to sock you in the arm, twice for flinching.:beer:

topscribe
08-28-2009, 01:08 PM
I'd say all the internal strife and pro bowlers not playing... if you want video I'm not able to provide that. Other than the players swatting balls out of the air and leaving town. Wait a minute, that's proof! You owe me five dollars or else Claymore gets to sock you in the arm, twice for flinching.:beer:

So you put that in plural form: Pro Bowlers, players . . . got names?

-----

Simple Jaded
08-28-2009, 02:18 PM
Tom Coughlin was on his way to getting his ass fired, or worse kicked, until he learned how to deal with 21st century players.

McDaniels could learn a thing or two from Coughlin, if only he didn't already wipe his ass with the two best players on the team, but hey, it's never too late to try.......

Gimpygod
08-28-2009, 02:26 PM
We need to start an Injury prediction thread. I say Stokley, Champ at some point, 2 running backs, Sheffler, and Hillis.

I vote Nate Jackson! I know he is going to pull a hamstring as a caddie/lackey of Shannahan somewhere.

claymore
08-28-2009, 02:28 PM
I vote Nate Jackson! I know he is going to pull a hamstring as a caddie/lackey of Shannahan somewhere.

That dude had something on Shanny, I swear it.

Gimpygod
08-28-2009, 02:36 PM
Um, so you have to have "finesse" to win Super Bowls in this league, eh...can you show me the "finesse" that Bill Belicheck, Tom Coughlin, Mike Tomlin, Bill Cowher, Jon Gruden and Brian Billick have when dealing with players who expect to have a say in roster moves and trades?

Because they've won 8 of the last 9 Super Bowls.

All of those guys got themselves a good quarterback and stuck with them regardless... this one tosses them out on their ear. Huge difference between being hard ass and hardheaded. I think Bill Cowher does use finesse in that his chin, and the spit falling down the groove in the middle, seems to have a mesmerizing effect on players:shocked::eek:

Gimpygod
08-28-2009, 02:42 PM
That dude had something on Shanny, I swear it.

No doubt! At first I thought it was just pictures he had stashed but by the third or fourth season of Jackson inexplicably making the team I decided it was in color, high-definition, video of some really gnarly situation Shanahan got himself into... I'm laying odds the location was Tijuana but I'm not sure of the deed quite yet. (artist rendition of said video):woot::sheep:

TXBRONC
08-28-2009, 02:46 PM
All of those guys got themselves a good quarterback and stuck with them regardless... this one tosses them out on their ear. Huge difference between being hard ass and hardheaded. I think Bill Cowher does use finesse in that his chin, and the spit falling down the groove in the middle, seems to have a mesmerizing effect on players:shocked::eek:

When Cowher was a head coach I don't know if his players thought he was a hard ass, what I do know is that when he made mistakes he admitted.

CoachChaz
08-28-2009, 02:47 PM
When Cowher was a head coach I don't know if his players thought he was a hard ass, what I do know is that when he made mistakes he admitted.

What benefit would it be to the team if McD stood up RIGHT NOW and made any kind of admission of screwing up? That's something that can be done down the road id it is indeed true

Thnikkaman
08-28-2009, 02:55 PM
What gain does anyone experience by bashing on McDaniels?

CoachChaz
08-28-2009, 03:33 PM
What gain does anyone experience by bashing on McDaniels?

Personal gratification in the fact that they MIGHT be able to say I told you so if it all fails within the three year window he was given

Ravage!!!
08-28-2009, 03:48 PM
What gain does anyone experience by bashing on McDaniels?

Could say the same thing about Cutler, Marshall, Shanahan....Portis.. Lelie....

What GAIN do we really get? None. DOesn't change the outcome of their life or the games.

But just because they are with Denver never seemed to exonerate any former coaches.

Simple Jaded
08-28-2009, 04:15 PM
"I told you so" doesn't mean a ****ing thing to me.

Ya'll could ask yourself the same question about bashing Marshall/Cutler and the trolls that defend them, but you won't, it kinda goes hand in hand with being a hypocrite.......

topscribe
08-28-2009, 04:39 PM
and I argue that your statement shows you have either only coached children, high school or maybe (I doubt it) College. All places where the coach is an authoritarian figure... in the professionals you have grown men with enormous salaries and options so you have to use finesse. Of which McDaniels has none.....

Okay, so you have attempted to discredit Coach by trying to assess at what
level he has coached, as if that enhances the merit of your own philosophy.
Which raises the question: where have you coached?

-----

Ravage!!!
08-28-2009, 04:53 PM
Okay, so you have attempted to discredit Coach by trying to assess at what
level he has coached, as if that enhances the merit of your own philosophy.
Which raises the question: where have you coached?

-----

it was actually 'coach' (using that loosly here) that tried to discredit me by trying to imply that I couldn't understand the 'management' of working with different personalities because of his estimation of my coaching experience.

None of which has a single thing to do with another. Nor does Gimpy's coaching experience have to do with anything.

Thnikkaman
08-28-2009, 04:59 PM
"I told you so" doesn't mean a ****ing thing to me.

Ya'll could ask yourself the same question about bashing Marshall/Cutler and the trolls that defend them, but you won't, it kinda goes hand in hand with being a hypocrite.......

Please don't resort to personal attacks. If you want to go there, we can go to the smack forum. I know that I am guilty of being over critical of <coach/player> as anyone else on this forum. If Marshall gets his head out of his ass and is the player we all know he can be this season, I will be very happy to see him in Bronco Blue and Orange. I'm also pissed that Cutler decided he didn't want to be a Bronco anymore, and I give all of my Bears friends in Iowa crap about how Cutler is a turnover machine. Its fun. I will admit to them that he is a good player.

The thing I don't get is the apparent rage people have against McDaniels. Marshall is acting like a spoiled child and its McDaniels fault. Really, if you were in McDaniel's position, what would you do?

----------------
Now playing: quasimoto_-_broad_factor(cleast_intwood_remix) (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/-/track/quasimoto_-_broad_factor(cleast_intwood_remix))
via FoxyTunes (http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/)

claymore
08-28-2009, 05:02 PM
Personal gratification in the fact that they MIGHT be able to say I told you so if it all fails within the three year window he was given

Im just getting it all out now. When you guys feel it I will be the calming factor.

claymore
08-28-2009, 05:04 PM
Please don't resort to personal attacks. If you want to go there, we can go to the smack forum. I know that I am guilty of being over critical of <coach/player> as anyone else on this forum. If Marshall gets his head out of his ass and is the player we all know he can be this season, I will be very happy to see him in Bronco Blue and Orange. I'm also pissed that Cutler decided he didn't want to be a Bronco anymore, and I give all of my Bears friends in Iowa crap about how Cutler is a turnover machine. Its fun. I will admit to them that he is a good player.

The thing I don't get is the apparent rage people have against McDaniels. Marshall is acting like a spoiled child and its McDaniels fault. Really, if you were in McDaniel's position, what would you do?

----------------
Now playing: quasimoto_-_broad_factor(cleast_intwood_remix) (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/-/track/quasimoto_-_broad_factor(cleast_intwood_remix))
via FoxyTunes (http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/)

Come out of the closet and ,marry belicheck. :hoodie:

Ravage!!!
08-28-2009, 05:10 PM
The thing I don't get is the apparent rage people have against McDaniels. Marshall is acting like a spoiled child and its McDaniels fault. Really, if you were in McDaniel's position, what would you do?

----------------


Its not rage, Thnik... and I think your question starts teh debate on whether or not we believe that we WOULD be in this position had it not been for McDaniels.

Now.. please don't try to say I'm BLAMING McDaniels, because as I've posted many times already, I'm not. I think Marshall is acting immature. Someone used a good example in another post about how Marshall is 'trying for the divorce.'

But it would seem that this is a problem. It seems McDaniels CAN'T seem to settle these problems BEFORE they get to this point. This is twice now. I'm sure there are people on this board that will purely blame the players and call them babies and whiners and whatevers. But we have to be realistic and see that THIS situation (not even counting the Culter one right now) has been going on for MONTHS. Why? Is it REALLY all Marshall, or is it McDaniels in ability to communicate...or.. his UNWILLINGNESS to not communicate with players and settle this stuff before it escalates to this degree?? What other NFL franchise do you know of that has had its franchise QB and now stud WR both want OUT, and the coach unable to settle something, somewhere?

Its not a RAGE against McDaniels. But I know I saw immaturity in both McDaniels and Cutler... but the immaturity from the player is less bothersome to me since the immaturity of the coach means our franchise QB is now out hte door. Now I'm seeing the same kind of things happen with another player. SOMETHING is consistent here.

WE will be the ones having to deal with this offseason after McD is gone in 2 years. We'll still have no Cutler, and most likely, have no Marshall as well. So the frustration comes from... GET IT FIXED... even it if means he strokes an ego and actually goes TO the player (which seems to be something he's not willing to do, he wants them to come to him) and work something out. But do what you have to do to settle these things down before they grow to this point. I felt he didn't do that with Cutler (whether you think Cutler was crying or whatevers, people in the NFL certainly agree that McDaniels should have made that effort to GO to Jay), and now I'm concerned he's not getting it done with Marshall.

Thats bothersome. We don't see this happening everywhere else.