Shanahan Voted 19th Best NFL Coach Of All Time

[OrangeHoof]

by ESPN:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/page/greatestcoach19/greatest-coaches-nfl-history-mike-shanahan


Shanahan started his third tour in Denver in 1995 -- this time as head coach, a position he would hold for 14 seasons. Shanahan's Broncos won 62 percent of their regular-season games, went to the playoffs seven times and were victorious in Super Bowls XXXII and XXXIII, a double exclamation mark at the end of Elway's Hall of Fame career. Shanahan initially kept the Broncos competitive after Elway's retirement, reaching the playoffs in four of the next seven seasons. However, after Denver blew a three-game AFC West lead with three games to play in 2008 to miss the playoffs for the third consecutive year, Shanahan was fired.

Personally, this seems about right. When I ranked these myself, there were roughly 20 NFL coaches with two or more NFL Championships to their name and Shanahan was one of them. His overall coaching record is pretty sound but the latter Bronco years and the Redskin years have tarnished somewhat the "genius" label he had back in the 90s.

He shouldn't be in the top tier with Landry, Brown, Shula, Noll, Lombardi, Walsh & Halas. My question would be whether he will get ranked below any one-title coaches like John Madden.

[Dreadnought]

by ESPN:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/page/greatestcoach19/greatest-coaches-nfl-history-mike-shanahan


Personally, this seems about right. When I ranked these myself, there were roughly 20 NFL coaches with two or more NFL Championships to their name and Shanahan was one of them. His overall coaching record is pretty sound but the latter Bronco years and the Redskin years have tarnished somewhat the "genius" label he had back in the 90s.

He shouldn't be in the top tier with Landry, Brown, Shula, Noll, Lombardi, Walsh & Halas. My question would be whether he will get ranked below any one-title coaches like John Madden.

I would like to see him ranked higher, if only to annoy a couple of his detractors. I'll concede Lombardi, Brown, Walsh, and Landry as "Mikey's" superior - especially Paul Brown. Everyone else is open to debate.

[Poet]

I think a lot of people factor in Shanahan's failed attempts to be a GM. I don't, I only view him as a coach. He's certainly a hall of fame coach. After that point, it's just a vantage point.

[Ravage!!!]

Interestingly enough, when comparing Shanahan's career after losing Elway to Landry and Noll (ESPECIALLY knoll) after they lost their HoF QB, Shanahan's numbers are better.

[SR]

We have to have a ceremony for him next season when he comes to town with the Skins

[LTC Pain]

We have to have a ceremony for him next season when he comes to town with the Skins

Okay Zam :)

[Chef Zambini]

you must have bosco for brains if you do not think there will be any acknowledgement of mike shanahan at the new mile high on that sunday.
there will most definatly be a video montage.

[SR]

you must have bosco for brains if you do not think there will be any acknowledgement of mike shanahan at the new mile high on that sunday.
there will most definatly be a video montage.

I bet you $50 there isn't any on game day inside the stadium.

[Chef Zambini]

I bet you $50 there isn't any on game day inside the stadium.send the money to a charity.

[SR]

send the money to a charity.

I'm not gonna lose any money homie. You're mental if you think the Broncos will honor Shanny during the game or before hand on game day.

[Chef Zambini]

we shall see.

[Ravage!!!]

Yeah.. that wouldn't make sense. Maybe sometime after Shanahan retires and isn't coaching the opposing team.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

Shanny would probably be higher on that list if he didn't field one of the worst D's in the history of the league in his last couple of years.

[Dzone]

He should just stick to coaching and not be vice president of football operations. He would be better having someone else deal with all that. Some of his personnel decisions were dreadful.

[sneakers]

We have to have a ceremony for him next season when he comes to town with the Skins

I saw how the Red Sox honored their old manager Terry Frankoni the last week was the perfect way to do this.

[OrangeHoof]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with a pre-game ceremony for Shanahan. If, for nothing else, it gives him one more thing that takes time away from game prep. His whole family should be recognized.

[SR]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with a pre-game ceremony for Shanahan. If, for nothing else, it gives him one more thing that takes time away from game prep. His whole family should be recognized.

It would distract the Broncos players more than it would the Redskins IMO. Praising the opponent on game day is a slap in the face to Broncos players. That would be like Davii going to Afghanistan tomorrow and shaking the hands of the Taliban before he kills them.

[OrangeHoof]

It would distract the Broncos players more than it would the Redskins IMO. Praising the opponent on game day is a slap in the face to Broncos players. That would be like Davii going to Afghanistan tomorrow and shaking the hands of the Taliban before he kills them.

God forbid we get our own players fired up over something. Somehow, I think the Broncos' GM would disagree with your assessment.

[SR]

God forbid we get our own players fired up over something. Somehow, I think the Broncos' GM would disagree with your assessment.

Somehow, I think Broncos players and coaches would agree. Question...did you ever play competitive sports at a high level?

[Dzone]

If they want to crown his ass, they should crown his ass at halftime

[OrangeHoof]

Somehow, I think Broncos players and coaches would agree. Question...did you ever play competitive sports at a high level?

Not at a high level but I've seen several pre- mid- and post-game ceremonies for opposing players and coaches over the years and I don't believe it has any effect on the home team. What about all those "farewell tours" you see of great players in their final year in the league and the honors they are given in opposing cities? Do you mean to say they were all slaps in the faces to their own players or were they a sportsman-like salute to one of the game's greats?

[SR]

Not at a high level but I've seen several pre- mid- and post-game ceremonies for opposing players and coaches over the years and I don't believe it has any effect on the home team. What about all those "farewell tours" you see of great players in their final year in the league and the honors they are given in opposing cities? Do you mean to say they were all slaps in the faces to their own players or were they a sportsman-like salute to one of the game's greats?

I didn't see Denver honor Ray Lewis who is one of the best MLBs ever.

[OrangeHoof]

Why would they? He's a thug.

Not the same thing as Shanahan who brought the city two Super Bowl titles. You're really reaching now.

[SR]

Why would they? He's a thug.

Not the same thing as Shanahan who brought the city two Super Bowl titles. You're really reaching now.

I'm not reaching. It's stupid to honor an opponent on game day. Period.

[Chef Zambini]

did joe montana or jerry rice ever play against the 9ers at candle stick?

[SR]

did joe montana or jerry rice ever play against the 9ers at candle stick?

Or Steve Atwater or Shannon Sharpe at Mile High? Did the Chiefs have some gaudy montage for Gonzo when he went back to Arrowhead? Randy Moss in MN? Favre in GB? What about when Bill Parcells went back to NE or NY? Sure they all get recognized, but on game day in the stadium is a different story.

[Chef Zambini]

gonzo did get a tribute at arrowhead !

most returns are not sepersted by a half dozen years.
This is shanny FIRST return to mile high.
he will be honored. not to do so would be "small" and unappreciative.
You all know I am not shannys greatest fan, but i would be dissapointed with the broncos org. if they did not honor shanny.
... and I think pat Bowlen would insist on it !

[SR]

gonzo did get a tribute at arrowhead !

most returns are not sepersted by a half dozen years.
This is shanny FIRST return to mile high.
he will be honored. not to do so would be "small" and unappreciative.
You all know I am not shannys greatest fan, but i would be dissapointed with the broncos org. if they did not honor shanny.
... and I think pat Bowlen would insist on it !

I can't find anything about a tribute for Gonzo in the stadium on game day. All I can find is a blurb about the fans booing him when he caught a TD and dunked the ball over the crossbar.

[Chef Zambini]

pretty sure they did a video montage during warm-ups .

[Ravage!!!]

God forbid we get our own players fired up over something. Somehow, I think the Broncos' GM would disagree with your assessment.

You think that Elway would agree with you that it's appropriate to give some kind of Shanahan ceremony at half-time? Somehow, I think the GM knows that Shanahan isn't retiring, this isn't going to be his last year, and he isn't dying. If we want to give Shanahan a "thank you" ceremony, lets do it after he retires, or isn't playing against us that week.

I don't see how anyone thinks this would be an appropriate time? :confused:

[Ravage!!!]

pretty sure they did a video montage during warm-ups .

They always have a video montage during warm-ups. But even..EVEN..if it was a "Tony Gonzalez" Montage (which would be weird considering he's on the other team).... that's during warm-up and not taking away from the team for a ceremony.

[Ravage!!!]

gonzo did get a tribute at arrowhead !

most returns are not sepersted by a half dozen years.
This is shanny FIRST return to mile high.
he will be honored. not to do so would be "small" and unappreciative.
You all know I am not shannys greatest fan, but i would be dissapointed with the broncos org. if they did not honor shanny.
... and I think pat Bowlen would insist on it !

No you wo uldn't be disappointed. You would LOVE LOVE LOVE to have ammo against Elway & Co. if they did something like that. You would LOVE to be able to "blame Elway" for not concentrating on the game. You would LOVE to be able to somehow turn it around and say "Shanahan screws us even when not a part of the Broncos"... you would LOVE to see something so dumb, so that you could throw it back into their faces if the Broncos lost the game.

You wouldn't be disappointed. This is a no-lose situation for you. You can say "we should do it, its the only right thing to do"... then when they don't, you can come back and try to say "I wonder if this shows just how much Elway and Bowlen dont like Shanahan?" You'll twist this thing back and forth to however you want it to be, just setting up for some kind of mocking later on.

[SR]

You think that Elway would agree with you that it's appropriate to give some kind of Shanahan ceremony at half-time? Somehow, I think the GM knows that Shanahan isn't retiring, this isn't going to be his last year, and he isn't dying. If we want to give Shanahan a "thank you" ceremony, lets do it after he retires, or isn't playing against us that week.

I don't see how anyone thinks this would be an appropriate time? :confused:

I don't get it either.

[Chef Zambini]

No you wo uldn't be disappointed. You would LOVE LOVE LOVE to have ammo against Elway & Co. if they did something like that. You would LOVE to be able to "blame Elway" for not concentrating on the game. You would LOVE to be able to somehow turn it around and say "Shanahan screws us even when not a part of the Broncos"... you would LOVE to see something so dumb, so that you could throw it back into their faces if the Broncos lost the game.

You wouldn't be disappointed. This is a no-lose situation for you. You can say "we should do it, its the only right thing to do"... then when they don't, you can come back and try to say "I wonder if this shows just how much Elway and Bowlen dont like Shanahan?" You'll twist this thing back and forth to however you want it to be, just setting up for some kind of mocking later on.where is my caldren and toad hair?
you BOR members are so paranoid its hysterical.
the broncos SHOULD honor shanny!
not to do so would be petty, and definatly unappreciative.

[Chef Zambini]

and the reason to do it NOW is because this is his FIRST time back since getting canned !

[MOtorboat]

and the reason to do it NOW is because this is his FIRST time back since getting canned !

Your last word is why he shouldn't get "honored" during the game. He did a lot of great things in Denver, but ultimately, he got canned.

[SR]

where is my caldren and toad hair?
you BOR members are so paranoid its hysterical.
the broncos SHOULD honor shanny!
not to do so would be petty, and definatly unappreciative.

No one is saying he shouldn't be honored. We are saying he shouldn't be honored by the Broncos franchise on game day inside the stadium. It's not paranoia, it's common sense.

[OrangeHoof]

No one is saying he shouldn't be honored. We are saying he shouldn't be honored by the Broncos franchise on game day inside the stadium. It's not paranoia, it's common sense.

So which are you saying?
* Shanahan shouldn't be honored while he is still active.
* Shanahan shouldn't be honored by the Broncos franchise
* Shanahan shouldn't be honored on game day
* Shanahan shouldn't be honored inside the stadium

Which of these do you claim is "common sense"?

IMO, honoring Shanahan is a classy thing to do for a franchise he led for over a decade and won two Super Bowls with. If they want to do it on game day, at Invesco, while he's the coach of the opponent, it doesn't bother me at all. Now if he and Elway swapped spit, that would probably bother me but otherwise, I'm fine with it.

Did the Broncos honor Red Miller? Dan Reeves?

[SR]

So which are you saying?
* Shanahan shouldn't be honored while he is still active.
* Shanahan shouldn't be honored by the Broncos franchise
* Shanahan shouldn't be honored on game day
* Shanahan shouldn't be honored inside the stadium

Which of these do you claim is "common sense"?

IMO, honoring Shanahan is a classy thing to do for a franchise he led for over a decade and won two Super Bowls with. If they want to do it on game day, at Invesco, while he's the coach of the opponent, it doesn't bother me at all. Now if he and Elway swapped spit, that would probably bother me but otherwise, I'm fine with it.

Did the Broncos honor Red Miller? Dan Reeves?

It's not which am i saying because I've been saying the same ******* thing for this entire thread. Shanny will be honored by the broncos at some point later on, probably after he retires, but it won't be when he returns to Denver as an opponent because THAT DEFIES COMMON SENSE.

[MOtorboat]

Personally, I think there's a very, very distinct difference between "honoring" an opposing coach and showing a video montage from his teams in the 90s. They show TD and Elway highlights at every game via video montage. That is, essentially, what they might do.

There will be no ceremony. There will be no further acknowledgement, and there shouldn't be. If they want to honor a retired Mike Shanahan on an alumni day, or even if they want to honor Shanahan on an alumni day when he's in town (unlikely when he's active) then that's fine. But he won't get a ceremony or an acknowledgement, but he might get a Super Bowl team montage. The two are very, very different.

[Simple Jaded]

Apparently Shanatan put in a good word to Manning when the two met here in Denver on Mannings FA tour, as we all know Manning chose Denver which allowed the team to rid itself of the most insidious disease in professional sports today. He should get a ceremony with a parade for any role he had in that alone.

[Poet]

Apparently Shanatan put in a good word to Manning when the two met here in Denver on Mannings FA tour, as we all know Manning chose Denver which allowed the team to rid itself of the most insidious disease in professional sports today. He should get a ceremony with a parade and a reach around for any role he had in that alone.

You must really hate Eddie Royal.

[Simple Jaded]

You must really hate Eddie Royal.

No, just his fans.

[Chef Zambini]

No one is saying he shouldn't be honored. We are saying he shouldn't be honored by the Broncos franchise on game day inside the stadium. It's not paranoia, it's common sense.the paranoia is regarding my manipulation of events, hello.

[SR]

the paranoia is regarding my manipulation of events, hello.

No one is paranoid because of anything you have said. Ever.

[Chef Zambini]

No you wo uldn't be disappointed. You would LOVE LOVE LOVE to have ammo against Elway & Co. if they did something like that. You would LOVE to be able to "blame Elway" for not concentrating on the game. You would LOVE to be able to somehow turn it around and say "Shanahan screws us even when not a part of the Broncos"... you would LOVE to see something so dumb, so that you could throw it back into their faces if the Broncos lost the game.

You wouldn't be disappointed. This is a no-lose situation for you. You can say "we should do it, its the only right thing to do"... then when they don't, you can come back and try to say "I wonder if this shows just how much Elway and Bowlen dont like Shanahan?" You'll twist this thing back and forth to however you want it to be, just setting up for some kind of mocking later on.
no paranoia?

[Chef Zambini]

we should honor tebow now that his NFL football career is over forever !

[Simple Jaded]

Btw, Eddie Royal might be a June 1 casualty, I'd take him over Holliday in a second.

[SR]

Btw, Eddie Royal might be a June 1 casualty, I'd take him over Holliday in a second.

You're high. Royal would never see the field other than special teams and he's not as good of a returner as Holliday. The Broncos would gain NOTHING by signing Royal. I swear to god some people just cannot let players go.

[Poet]

Interestingly enough, when comparing Shanahan's career after losing Elway to Landry and Noll (ESPECIALLY knoll) after they lost their HoF QB, Shanahan's numbers are better.

The Noll comparison isn't analogous because he also lost a ton of his aging team. Noll wasn't coaching in a time when it was a league of parody. Once your team hit that wall, it was harder to recoup.

[Simple Jaded]

You're high. Royal would never see the field other than special teams and he's not as good of a returner as Holliday. The Broncos would gain NOTHING by signing Royal. I swear to god some people just cannot let players go.


It's not a matter of opinion, Holliday is nowhere near the football player Royal is. I had no problem letting Royal go, btw, none. You're the one arguing over a backup position here, let it go.

[SR]

It's not a matter of opinion, Holliday is nowhere near the football player Royal is. I had no problem letting Royal go, btw, none. You're the one arguing over a backup position here, let it go.

I'm not arguing...just making a point.

[Simple Jaded]

I'm not arguing...just making a point.

Are you sure bout that?

[SR]

Are you sure bout that?

Are you sure about that?

[BroncoJoe]

Back to Shanahan...

The crowd will welcome him nicely when he's announced.

Nothing else should be done.

[Northman]

Btw, Eddie Royal might be a June 1 casualty, I'd take him over Holliday in a second.

Why not keep both? I would like to have Royal back but Holliday is the only reason we didnt get blown out of the building in our playoff game.

[MOtorboat]

Don't need Royal...

[Chef Zambini]

Your last word is why he shouldn't get "honored" during the game. He did a lot of great things in Denver, but ultimately, he got canned.really you want to go there? ... with me?
you better clear it with RAV first.

[Ravage!!!]

Don't need Royal...

Well... "need" is relative. Personally, I like depth. Can never have too much of it. Royal would obviously not be a starter, but I believe him to be better than Caldwelll.... AND.. he provides depth as a return guy if Holliday were to ever get injured. It's not like Royal wouldn't be able to provide depth at several positions, including slot.

I'm not saying we MUST go after him by any means, but "need" is relative to what you have at the time. When everyone is healthy, you are right.

[MOtorboat]

Well... "need" is relative. Personally, I like depth. Can never have too much of it. Royal would obviously not be a starter, but I believe him to be better than Caldwelll.... AND.. he provides depth as a return guy if Holliday were to ever get injured. It's not like Royal wouldn't be able to provide depth at several positions, including slot.

I'm not saying we MUST go after him by any means, but "need" is relative to what you have at the time. When everyone is healthy, you are right.

Denver doesn't really need Royal, unless there is an injury...

But look at it from a different perspective. Why would Royal step into a position where he's automatically lower than third on the depth chart or competing to be a seldom-used fourth receiver? I'm sure Royal can find a better situation for himself.

[TXBRONC]

No one is paranoid because of anything you have said. Ever.


Btw, Eddie Royal might be a June 1 casualty, I'd take him over Holliday in a second.

I wouldn't he isn't anywhere as explosive as of a return specialist that Holliday is. I like Royal but I don't see a place for him on this team.

[Poet]

I thought that guy was going to be awesome. Then he just fell off the face of the earth. I still remember that game he had against Oakland. Oh my lord he set them on fire.

[Chef Zambini]

shanny surprized the raiders with royal!
He had 11 catches, over 100 yards !
It was his best game ever.

[Bosco]

I thought that guy was going to be awesome. Then he just fell off the face of the earth. I still remember that game he had against Oakland. Oh my lord he set them on fire.

Word around the league is that his injuries robbed him of a lot of his athletic ability, hence his decline.

Sad, because he had great potential and was, by all accounts, a classy guy.

[Ravage!!!]

ahhhhh..... shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiittt

[Chef Zambini]

royal abandoned ship before there was even a chance of PFM coming aboard.

[Ravage!!!]

royal abandoned ship before there was even a chance of PFM coming aboard.

Yeah.. he thought Tebow would be the one throwing the ball.

[Poet]

Yeah.. he thought Tebow would be the one throwing the ball.

Can we really blame him?

[Chef Zambini]

Royal wasnt the first WR or teammate to try and escape the tebomania, and he wasnt going to be the last.
thaTS WHY jfe knew he had to figure out a way to dump tebow, the PR nightmare.
PFM was his way out!

[Chef Zambini]

Back to Shanahan...

The crowd will welcome him nicely when he's announced.

Nothing else should be done.the METS honored mariano rivera yesterday!
he FAILED for his first time in his life to record an out and had a rare blown save!
we definatly shopuld honor shanny to get similar results.

[MOtorboat]

the METS honored mariano rivera yesterday!
he FAILED for his first time in his life to record an out and had a rare blown save!
we definatly shopuld honor shanny to get similar results.

That is terrible reasoning. Terrible.

[Bosco]

royal abandoned ship before there was even a chance of PFM coming aboard.

Doubt it would have mattered much. Royal had two years with Orton (who performed well statistically) in a system predicated on him seeing a lot of targets, so I have a tough time seeing him suddenly get back to his 2008 form under Manning.

[TXBRONC]

Doubt it would have mattered much. Royal had two years with Orton (who performed well statistically) in a system predicated on him seeing a lot of targets, so I have a tough time seeing him suddenly get back to his 2008 form under Manning.

Well no he played exactly he is journeyman. I guess you forgot that Orton never did a very good job of finding other targets. McDaniels offense was piece of hot garbage.

[Chef Zambini]

Doubt it would have mattered much. Royal had two years with Orton (who performed well statistically) in a system predicated on him seeing a lot of targets, so I have a tough time seeing him suddenly get back to his 2008 form under Manning.au contrair mon ami,
I think if royal was still with the team, he would be filling the same role that welker now fills.
Royal has talent and is smart.
He would flourish with a QB like manning!
look at how well he performed with a snot nosed JC !

[Ravage!!!]

au contrair mon ami,
I think if royal was still with the team, he would be filling the same role that welker now fills.
Royal has talent and is smart.
He would flourish with a QB like manning!
look at how well he performed with a snot nosed JC !

I agree that Royal would have flourished with Manning. He would have filled/competed/rotated with Decker... and Decker has done fantastic. Royal has the skill set that Decker has, so I can't believe that Royal would have succeeded with Manning throwing the ball.

[Northman]

Well no he played exactly he is journeyman. I guess you forgot that Orton never did a very good job of finding other targets. McDaniels offense was piece of hot garbage.


I agree that Royal would have flourished with Manning. He would have filled/competed/rotated with Decker... and Decker has done fantastic. Royal has the skill set that Decker has, so I can't believe that Royal wouldn't have succeeded with Manning throwing the ball.

All this.

It really does matter who is throwing the ball and even if Royal isnt a world beater on his own if you have a QB that can get him the ball than he can be very productive.

[Bosco]

Well no he played exactly he is journeyman. I guess you forgot that Orton never did a very good job of finding other targets. McDaniels offense was piece of hot garbage. Orton was above average in 2009 and very good in 2010, getting into MVP talks for awhile there. If there was one things he was good at it was his ability to distribute the ball. Marshall, Gaffney, Stokley, Scheffler, Lloyd and even Royal in 2010 had their fair share of targets.


au contrair mon ami,
I think if royal was still with the team, he would be filling the same role that welker now fills.
Royal has talent and is smart.
He would flourish with a QB like manning!
look at how well he performed with a snot nosed JC !

He's already played that role though. Josh McDaniels offense is the one that's seen Welker catch 672 passes in 6 years with the Patriots, and Royal was employed in the same exact role while McDaniels was here in 2009-2010 was average at best.

I like the kid and hope he turns it around, but he seems to have lost that burst and shiftiness that he used to have.

[TXBRONC]

Orton was above average in 2009 and very good in 2010, getting into MVP talks for awhile there. If there was one things he was good at it was his ability to distribute the ball. Marshall, Gaffney, Stokley, Scheffler, Lloyd and even Royal in 2010 had their fair share of targets.



He's already played that role though. Josh McDaniels offense is the one that's seen Welker catch 672 passes in 6 years with the Patriots, and Royal was employed in the same exact role while McDaniels was here in 2009-2010 was average at best.

I like the kid and hope he turns it around, but he seems to have lost that burst and shiftiness that he used to have.

Ah no. At no point in Orton's time was he ever above average and no he wasn't great at distributing the ball. If he was half good as you imagine him to be there wouldn't have been such huge discrepancies his number one and his number two receivers numbers as far as receptions are concerned. As far as utilizing the tight end he did a terrible job.

[Bosco]

Ah no. At no point in Orton's time was he ever above average and no he wasn't great at distributing the ball. If he was half good as you imagine him to be there wouldn't have been such huge discrepancies his number one and his number two receivers numbers as far as receptions are concerned. As far as utilizing the tight end he did a terrible job.


Dueling No. 1s. Baltimore and Denver present a surprising matchup between the NFL's No. 1 pass defense (Ravens) and No. 1 pass offense (Broncos). Baltimore was expected to struggle without Pro Bowl safety Ed Reed (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=3552), who is on the physically unable to perform list with a hip injury. But cornerbacks Lardarius Webb (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=12747) and Fabian Washington (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=8438) have returned from knee injuries to play well, and safety Tom Zbikowski (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=11320) also has filled in fine for Reed. The Ravens are holding opponents to an NFL-best 119 passing yards per game. Baltimore will need another strong performance against Broncos quarterback and early MVP candidate Kyle Orton (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=8520), who has thrown for 1,419 yards and six touchdowns.

http://espn.go.com/blog/afcnorth/tag/_/name/kyle-orton

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/30025/mike-sandos-mvp-watch-23

Just two links I found from 2010 that mention Orton getting MVP consideration. Second link mentions we had the number 1 passing offense in the league at that point (finished 7th). Obviously that's going to put him in the "above average" category. To be fair though, Orton's performance was elevated by having McDaniels coaching him and spoon feeding him the offense. We saw what he regressed to when McDaniels was fired.

Your claimed discrepancy in catches ignores targets and the fact that for Orton's two years he had a revolving door for a #2 receiver, with Gaffney, Stokley, Royal, and Thomas all playing that role in stretches. Gaffney had 54 and 65 catches in 2009 and 2010, despite being the #3 receiver.

As for tight ends, Orton didn't have much. In 2009 he had Graham and Scheffler...the first being an aging player more adept at blocking and the second a marginal starter who didn't want to be here. In 2010 he had an even older Graham and the least talented of the Gronkowski trio.

[TXBRONC]

http://espn.go.com/blog/afcnorth/tag/_/name/kyle-orton

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/30025/mike-sandos-mvp-watch-23

Just two links I found from 2010 that mention Orton getting MVP consideration. Second link mentions we had the number 1 passing offense in the league at that point (finished 7th). Obviously that's going to put him in the "above average" category. To be fair though, Orton's performance was elevated by having McDaniels coaching him and spoon feeding him the offense. We saw what he regressed to when McDaniels was fired.

Your claimed discrepancy in catches ignores targets and the fact that for Orton's two years he had a revolving door for a #2 receiver, with Gaffney, Stokley, Royal, and Thomas all playing that role in stretches. Gaffney had 54 and 65 catches in 2009 and 2010, despite being the #3 receiver.

As for tight ends, Orton didn't have much. In 2009 he had Graham and Scheffler...the first being an aging player more adept at blocking and the second a marginal starter who didn't want to be here. In 2010 he had an even older Graham and the least talented of the Gronkowski trio.

So being mention in a couple articles makes him above average? That is stupid and inaccurate. The mere fact he was mentioned a couple of times doesn't make him above average. You blow your own argument when you then turn around and say McDaniels had to spoon feed him the offense. That's not a trait of an above average quarterback. Orton ended up in the same place in both seasons with McDaniels which were average numbers.

Your arguement about targets is ruined because it shows how much he leaned on just one receiver. What a bullshit line about a revolving door at number 2 receiver. The only change in the receiving corp was Marshall. I sure don't remember you lamenting about that three years. In fact I remember telling all of us in your expert opinion how great it was going to be.

[Ravage!!!]

http://espn.go.com/blog/afcnorth/tag/_/name/kyle-orton

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/30025/mike-sandos-mvp-watch-23

The first link you showed did NOT mention Orton to be a candidate for MVP, but did have an article about how Orton was completely confused by Baltimore's defense, from 2009.

The second, from Sando, was written on October 20th...which at the time Kyle was 2-4. I don't know WHERE You see that it said Denver had the #1 pass offense. Kyle was second in yards and 8th in TDs. That is NOT #1.

You want to say he "regressed" after McDaniels left?? This is where you lost any... ANY... credibility. Orton was replaced after leading us to the worst record in Bronco HISTORY... while McDanies was the coach! How is that regressing AFTER McDaniels left???? :confused:

McDaniels was the one that was lost the moment he accepted a HC job.

[TXBRONC]

The first link you showed did NOT mention Orton to be a candidate for MVP, but did have an article about how Orton was completely confused by Baltimore's defense, from 2009.

The second, from Sando, was written on October 20th...which at the time Kyle was 2-4. I don't know WHERE You see that it said Denver had the #1 pass offense. Kyle was second in yards and 8th in TDs. That is NOT #1.

You want to say he "regressed" after McDaniels left?? This is where you lost any... ANY... credibility. McDaniels was the one that was lost the moment he accepted a HC job.

I'm on my cell phone so I didn't look at the links well guess I should have tried anyway. IIRC Bosco is McDaniels number one fanboy.

[Northman]

Well... "need" is relative. Personally, I like depth. Can never have too much of it. Royal would obviously not be a starter, but I believe him to be better than Caldwelll.... AND.. he provides depth as a return guy if Holliday were to ever get injured. It's not like Royal wouldn't be able to provide depth at several positions, including slot.

I'm not saying we MUST go after him by any means, but "need" is relative to what you have at the time. When everyone is healthy, you are right.

Lol yea.

I love MO but seriously? We dont need Larry Fitzgerald either but i would take him in a heartbeat. Yes, i realize Royal is not Fitz but its not like taking Royal back on the squad would hurt the team.

[Ravage!!!]

Lol yea.

I love MO but seriously? We dont need Larry Fitzgerald either but i would take him in a heartbeat. Yes, i realize Royal is not Fitz but its not like taking Royal back on the squad would hurt the team.

Well worded, thank you.

[MOtorboat]

Lol yea.

I love MO but seriously? We dont need Larry Fitzgerald either but i would take him in a heartbeat. Yes, i realize Royal is not Fitz but its not like taking Royal back on the squad would hurt the team.

Fitzgerald would automatically be the No. 1. Royal would be the No. 4 or No. 5. So does Denver really need to pay free agent money for a 4 or 5 in a system that runs with 3 WRs most of the time?

[Northman]

Fitzgerald would automatically be the No. 1. Royal would be the No. 4 or No. 5. So does Denver really need to pay free agent money for a 4 or 5 in a system that runs with 3 WRs most of the time?

Sure, every team needs depth. Its not like Royal would be asking for the bank here. Im not saying Denver HAS to take him on im only saying it wouldnt hurt the team any.

[Ravage!!!]

Sure, every team needs depth. Its not like Royal would be asking for the bank here. Im not saying Denver HAS to take him on im only saying it wouldnt hurt the team any.

I also contend that he would be better than Caldwell. NBA teams can only play 5 people on the court at a time, does that not mean that the 6th man is important? What about #7? I think we've seen that "free agent money" isn't that high, Royal isn't going to require a ton of money to get, he adds depth at several IMPORTANT positions (WR, slot, KR), and FA money doesn't do a lot of good when not being used.

I'm a little surprised, MO, that you don't see the value in the 4th WR considering the injuries we've had in the past years at that position.

[Chef Zambini]

That is terrible reasoning. Terrible.its called comedy MO.
there is a TV nework devoted to it!



Its called Fox News.

[Chef Zambini]

if welker were injured, who would pl;ay the slot?
if there is a slight chance that the SMALLEST manin all of the NFL could possibly get hurt doing something as easy going as returning kicks...
who would replace him?
If the brass wants royal I think he could definatly contribute to this team.

[Chef Zambini]

shanny is probably taking a look at royal.

[MOtorboat]

its called comedy MO.
there is a TV nework devoted to it!



Its called Fox News.

Your funny sucks as much as your football knowledge.

:clap2:

[MOtorboat]

Sure, every team needs depth. Its not like Royal would be asking for the bank here. Im not saying Denver HAS to take him on im only saying it wouldnt hurt the team any.

Of course it wouldn't "hurt" the team, I just don't see the need for him.

I also really don't see why he'd sign here, but that's a different topic, really.

[Chef Zambini]

if holiday or welker get injured your vision would improve.
your hindsight vision.

[TXBRONC]

if welker were injured, who would pl;ay the slot?
if there is a slight chance that the SMALLEST manin all of the NFL could possibly get hurt doing something as easy going as returning kicks...
who would replace him?
If the brass wants royal I think he could definatly contribute to this team.

I could see two different things happening:

1.) The most obvious is one of the other reserves either has to steps up and fills the role.

2.) We lean more heavily on a two tight end sets.

[Chef Zambini]

royal would facillitate a productive 'plan b" in a lot of situations.if the brass decide to bring royal back, he will prove to be a valuable member of the roster !

[Bosco]

So being mention in a couple articles makes him above average? That is stupid and inaccurate. The mere fact he was mentioned a couple of times doesn't make him above average. You blow your own argument when you then turn around and say McDaniels had to spoon feed him the offense. That's not a trait of an above average quarterback. Doesn't matter how or why he got there. What matters is that he did it.


Your arguement about targets is ruined because it shows how much he leaned on just one receiver. What a bullshit line about a revolving door at number 2 receiver. The only change in the receiving corp was Marshall. I sure don't remember you lamenting about that three years. In fact I remember telling all of us in your expert opinion how great it was going to be.

Did you even read what I posted? Royal was supposed to be the #2 receiver, but he was constantly banged up in 2009 and 2010 and mostly ineffective even when healthy in 2009, hence why Gaffney, Stokley and Thomas were getting more targets. Your argument is basically "the #1 receiver caught a lot more passes than the #2, therefor Orton sucked at distributing the ball" which is a very myopic viewpoint completely devoid of logic and conveniently ignores the fact that our #3 and #4 receivers were catching more passes than most.

If you're interested, there is a post somewhere on this forum where someone wanted to debate me on whether we should keep Gaffney, and I posted the numbers showing that despite being our #3 receiver and only starting 7 games in 2009, Gaffney had more catches than most #2 receivers in the NFL.


The first link you showed did NOT mention Orton to be a candidate for MVP, but did have an article about how Orton was completely confused by Baltimore's defense, from 2009. You need to scroll down further. This is the quote from the first link.


Dueling No. 1s. Baltimore and Denver present a surprising matchup between the NFL's No. 1 pass defense (Ravens) and No. 1 pass offense (Broncos). Baltimore was expected to struggle without Pro Bowl safety Ed Reed (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=3552), who is on the physically unable to perform list with a hip injury. But cornerbacks Lardarius Webb (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=12747) and Fabian Washington (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=8438) have returned from knee injuries to play well, and safety Tom Zbikowski (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=11320) also has filled in fine for Reed. The Ravens are holding opponents to an NFL-best 119 passing yards per game. Baltimore will need another strong performance against Broncos quarterback and early MVP candidate Kyle Orton (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=8520), who has thrown for 1,419 yards and six touchdowns.


The second, from Sando, was written on October 20th...which at the time Kyle was 2-4. I don't know WHERE You see that it said Denver had the #1 pass offense. Kyle was second in yards and 8th in TDs. That is NOT #1. You're right, it was in the first link, not the second.


You want to say he "regressed" after McDaniels left?? This is where you lost any... ANY... credibility. Orton was replaced after leading us to the worst record in Bronco HISTORY... while McDanies was the coach! How is that regressing AFTER McDaniels left???? :confused:

You're confused. McDaniels was fired on December 7th. Tebow didn't get his first start until December 19th against Oakland. Orton started the game against the Cardinals on December 12 and was injured in the process, which allowed Tebow to get his start. Orton then took back the job in 2011, sucked pretty bad and Tebow moved back into the starting role.

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/16/kyle-orton-injury-status-suddenly-in-question-tim-tebow-may-sta/

[Chef Zambini]

tebow and orton are toast, burnt toast.
WTF do you guys want to waste time trying to spread any butter on either?
we have PFM to be our QB
and BO to argue about !
we dont need KO or TT for anything except comic relief !

[TXBRONC]

Doesn't matter how or why he got there. What matters is that he did it.



Did you even read what I posted? Royal was supposed to be the #2 receiver, but he was constantly banged up in 2009 and 2010 and mostly ineffective even when healthy in 2009, hence why Gaffney, Stokley and Thomas were getting more targets. Your argument is basically "the #1 receiver caught a lot more passes than the #2, therefor Orton sucked at distributing the ball" which is a very myopic viewpoint completely devoid of logic and conveniently ignores the fact that our #3 and #4 receivers were catching more passes than most.

If you're interested, there is a post somewhere on this forum where someone wanted to debate me on whether we should keep Gaffney, and I posted the numbers showing that despite being our #3 receiver and only starting 7 games in 2009, Gaffney had more catches than most #2 receivers in the NFL.

You need to scroll down further. This is the quote from the first link.



You're right, it was in the first link, not the second.



You're confused. McDaniels was fired on December 7th. Tebow didn't get his first start until December 19th against Oakland. Orton started the game against the Cardinals on December 12 and was injured in the process, which allowed Tebow to get his start. Orton then took back the job in 2011, sucked pretty bad and Tebow moved back into the starting role.

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/16/kyle-orton-injury-status-suddenly-in-question-tim-tebow-may-sta/


You sure don't know how to read. I said doesn't matter how many lame articles you come up that mention him as possibly a MVP candidate didn't make him more than an average quarterback.

No my view isn't mypoic it's call fact. Orton was never that distributing the ball.When actually use real logic which haven't done I'll let you know. You just try to pass shit off as facts and logic when they're not.

Your links didn't say what you said they would.

I know you believe that if you just keep talking you win the debate but nothing could be further from the truth.

[TXBRONC]

tebow and orton are toast, burnt toast.
WTF do you guys want to waste time trying to spread any butter on either?
we have PFM to be our QB
and BO to argue about !
we dont need KO or TT for anything except comic relief !

You would do well to close your piehole because you're constantly bringing whinefest about Osweiler.

[Chef Zambini]

You would do well to close your piehole because you're constantly bringing whinefest about Osweiler.... I also brought a nice smoked gruyere and a lovely sancere to the 'fest as well.
did ypou actually read the text?
PFM our QB,
BO our arguing point.
you need to take a lesson from michael jackson and lighten-up !

[TXBRONC]

... I also brought a nice smoked gruyere and a lovely sancere to the 'fest as well.
did ypou actually read the text?
PFM our QB,
BO our arguing point.
you need to take a lesson from michael jackson and lighten-up !

As I've told you before I don't speak retard.

[Ravage!!!]

You're confused. McDaniels was fired on December 7th. Tebow didn't get his first start until December 19th against Oakland. Orton started the game against the Cardinals on December 12 and was injured in the process, which allowed Tebow to get his start. Orton then took back the job in 2011, sucked pretty bad and Tebow moved back into the starting role.

Bosco, I'm not confused. You have some SERIOUS revisionist memory going on.

You keep saying that Orton was in the MVP talk and only "regressed" once McDaniels left. The truth is, after the first six games in 2009, Orton went 2-8.....ALL under McDaniels. In 2010, the following year, ( before McDoosh was fired) Orton was 3-9 as the starter. How does this illustrate success or in any way give example of a guy that was "excelling" under McDaniels??

Orton pretty much sucked his entire tenure with the Broncos, under McDaniels, and this "blurb" you find with his name thrown into the hat from some writer doesn't exactly make your point. It honestly comes across as more of a sling at desperation. If it wasn't for our defense not allowing a single point in the second half during those first 6 games of 2009, Orton's record would be even worse than the horrible 11-17 that it stands at right now.

[TXBRONC]

Bosco, I'm not confused. You have some SERIOUS revisionist memory going on.

You keep saying that Orton was in the MVP talk and only "regressed" once McDaniels left. The truth is, after the first six games in 2009, Orton went 2-8.....ALL under McDaniels. In 2010, the following year, ( before McDoosh was fired) Orton was 3-9 as the starter. How does this illustrate success or in any way give example of a guy that was "excelling" under McDaniels??

Orton pretty much sucked his entire tenure with the Broncos, under McDaniels, and this "blurb" you find with his name thrown into the hat from some writer doesn't exactly make your point. It honestly comes across as more of a sling at desperation. If it wasn't for our defense not allowing a single point in the second half during those first 6 games of 2009, Orton's record would be even worse than the horrible 11-17 that it stands at right now.

He talks about logic then tells us that just because Orton was briefly mentioned in one article therefore Orton was an above average quarterback. That's not logical it's laughable.

[Chef Zambini]

orton is spiro agnew.

[Bosco]

You sure don't know how to read. I said doesn't matter how many lame articles you come up that mention him as possibly a MVP candidate didn't make him more than an average quarterback. I agree he is an average quarterback. I said his 2010 performance was MVP worthy. Big difference.


No my view isn't mypoic it's call fact. Orton was never that distributing the ball.When actually use real logic which haven't done I'll let you know. You just try to pass shit off as facts and logic when they're not. Just curious, by why do you type like you have palsy?

And no, your view is not fact, it's your opinion...and not a very informed one at that. If you had facts on your side, you'd have numbers showing that Orton targeted a particular receiver far more often than his numbers and reference that against the league wide trend or other comparable quarterbacks (you can find that information if you look hard enough).

Let me ask this directly. What kind of legitimate evidence can you provide to show that Orton was poor at distributing the football?


Your links didn't say what you said they would. They did. I just mixed them up.


I know you believe that if you just keep talking you win the debate but nothing could be further from the truth. You win the debate with facts and knowledge. On that front, I'm solidly in the lead.


Bosco, I'm not confused. You have some SERIOUS revisionist memory going on.

You keep saying that Orton was in the MVP talk and only "regressed" once McDaniels left. The truth is, after the first six games in 2009, Orton went 2-8.....ALL under McDaniels. In 2010, the following year, ( before McDoosh was fired) Orton was 3-9 as the starter. How does this illustrate success or in any way give example of a guy that was "excelling" under McDaniels??

Orton pretty much sucked his entire tenure with the Broncos, under McDaniels, and this "blurb" you find with his name thrown into the hat from some writer doesn't exactly make your point. It honestly comes across as more of a sling at desperation. If it wasn't for our defense not allowing a single point in the second half during those first 6 games of 2009, Orton's record would be even worse than the horrible 11-17 that it stands at right now.

Question. Did you miss the part of my post where I specifically mentioned his statistical performance?

[TXBRONC]

I agree he is an average quarterback. I said his 2010 performance was MVP worthy. Big difference.

Just curious, by why do you type like you have palsy?

And no, your view is not fact, it's your opinion...and not a very informed one at that. If you had facts on your side, you'd have numbers showing that Orton targeted a particular receiver far more often than his numbers and reference that against the league wide trend or other comparable quarterbacks (you can find that information if you look hard enough).

Let me ask this directly. What kind of legitimate evidence can you provide to show that Orton was poor at distributing the football?

They did. I just mixed them up.

You win the debate with facts and knowledge. On that front, I'm solidly in the lead.



Question. Did you miss the part of my post where I specifically mentioned his statistical performance?

You haven't provided one fact yet. You gave your lame inpretation of them but that's about it.

You didn't prove anything when it comes to Oton. A reporter mentioned Orton as possible MVP candidate and you take that to mean he was well it doesn't it just reporter's opinion genius.

In your own pathetic little mind you're in the lead but in reality you don't know anything. Seriously, facts and reality have never been close friends with you. :wave:

[Bosco]

You haven't provided one fact yet. You gave your lame inpretation of them but that's about it.

You didn't prove anything when it comes to Oton. A reporter mentioned Orton as possible MVP candidate and you take that to mean he was well it doesn't it just reporter's opinion genius.

In your own pathetic little mind you're in the lead but in reality you don't know anything. Seriously, facts and reality have never been close friends with you. :wave:

Ok, here you go.

Fact: In 2009, Marshall had 101 catches, Gaffney 54, Royal 37, Buckhalter 31, Scheffler 31, Moreno 28, Graham 28, Stokley 19, Lloyd 8, Hillis 4. Seven players with 25+ catches on the year.

Fact: In 2009, Orton completed passes to a minimum of 6 receivers in almost every game. The exceptions to this were the first Oakland game where we won 23-3 and Kyle only threw 23 passes, the Redskins game where Kyle was injured and missed the second half, and the 44-13 win over the Chiefs where we ran the ball 45 times mostly to kill the clock.

(Edit: Forgot the Colts game where Marshall caught 20 passes)

Fact: In 2010, our receivers caught 77, 65, 59, 37, 28, 22, and 18 passes, with another 28 passes distributed to backup and role players.

Fact: Our #1 receiver in 2010 only caught 12 more passes than our #2 receiver, and only 18 more than the #3 receiver.

All of these are indisputable facts which support the assertion that Orton did a solid job of distributing the football. Now, let us see what facts you can provide to counter that assertion.

[SR]

LOL @ sticking up for Kyle "nothing more than average" Orton

[TXBRONC]

LOL @ sticking up for Kyle "nothing more than average" Orton

But, but, but he was having an MVP type season.

[Poet]

He was a mvp candidate for awhile. Just like Cedric Benson was in 09, or Harvin was last year. Every year some player who is doing great has their name pop up early on. Then at the end of the year the real candidates are picked.

[TXBRONC]

He was a mvp candidate for awhile. Just like Cedric Benson was in 09, or Harvin was last year. Every year some player who is doing great has their name pop up early on. Then at the end of the year the real candidates are picked.

Average players tend to do that.

[Poet]

Average players tend to do that.

Pretty much. I was an Orton proponent that year. He was a pretty good QB for that season. BUUUUUT, let's be real here, Orton a MVP he ain't. He's a backup QB right now. Orton's roll has been a solid starter and backup QB. He was never as bad as some of the fans in Chicago and Denver made him out to be. However, he certainly was never as good as some of the fans in Chicago and Denver made him out to be.

[TXBRONC]

Pretty much. I was an Orton proponent that year. He was a pretty good QB for that season. BUUUUUT, let's be real here, Orton a MVP he ain't. He's a backup QB right now. Orton's roll has been a solid starter and backup QB. He was never as bad as some of the fans in Chicago and Denver made him out to be. However, he certainly was never as good as some of the fans in Chicago and Denver made him out to be.

Orton is best suited to being a back up quarterback and I think that has always been true. He can start in spots but he's not the kind of quarterback you build an offense around.

[Poet]

That's a fair opinion. To me he's just another version of Brad Johnson or Trent Dilfer. Throw him on those teams and they'd probably be fine. It's a moot point now.

[Northman]

LOL @ sticking up for Kyle "nothing more than average" Orton

Thats why this thread has become so comical now.

[TXBRONC]

Thats why this thread has become so comical now.

I like comedy.

[Simple Jaded]

Ok, here you go.

Fact: In 2009, Marshall had 101 catches, Gaffney 54, Royal 37, Buckhalter 31, Scheffler 31, Moreno 28, Graham 28, Stokley 19, Lloyd 8, Hillis 4. Seven players with 25+ catches on the year.

Fact: In 2009, Orton completed passes to a minimum of 6 receivers in almost every game. The exceptions to this were the first Oakland game where we won 23-3 and Kyle only threw 23 passes, the Redskins game where Kyle was injured and missed the second half, and the 44-13 win over the Chiefs where we ran the ball 45 times mostly to kill the clock.

(Edit: Forgot the Colts game where Marshall caught 20 passes)

Fact: In 2010, our receivers caught 77, 65, 59, 37, 28, 22, and 18 passes, with another 28 passes distributed to backup and role players.

Fact: Our #1 receiver in 2010 only caught 12 more passes than our #2 receiver, and only 18 more than the #3 receiver.

All of these are indisputable facts which support the assertion that Orton did a solid job of distributing the football. Now, let us see what facts you can provide to counter that assertion.

This is be because Orton's basic instinct is to always throw the ball to the closet receiver/easiest pass regardless of who it may be. Orton was one of many huge mistakes made by McDaniels.

[Chef Zambini]

Pretty much. I was an Orton proponent that year. He was a pretty good QB for that season. BUUUUUT, let's be real here, Orton a MVP he ain't. He's a backup QB right now. Orton's roll has been a solid starter and backup QB. He was never as bad as some of the fans in Chicago and Denver made him out to be. However, he certainly was never as good as some of the fans in Chicago and Denver made him out to be.he was ortonary.

[Chef Zambini]

will somebody please start an ORTON thread so we can go there and discuss shanahan?

[MOtorboat]

But, but, but he was having an MVP type season.

Your assertion got owned, though.

That was fun, wasn't it?

[TXBRONC]

Your assertion got owned, though.

That was fun, wasn't it?

Owned?

Do you mean fun as in dragging up old threads just to talk smack to guy who hasn't been here in months?

[Northman]

Owned?

Do you mean fun as in dragging up old threads just to talk smack to guy who hasn't been here in months?


Shouldnt really be a surprise. Bosco was a huge McDaniels advocate and when McD got fired he disappeared all except the once in a blue moon drive by's.

[TXBRONC]

Shouldnt really be a surprise. Bosco was a huge McDaniels advocate and when McD got fired he disappeared all except the once in a blue moon drive by's.

I'm not surprised at all.

[Chef Zambini]

orton and shanahan, what a tandem !

[Bosco]

Shouldnt really be a surprise. Bosco was a huge McDaniels advocate and when McD got fired he disappeared all except the once in a blue moon drive by's.

Actually I was here posting pretty consistently into December of 2011, over a year after McDaniels was fired.

[TXBRONC]

Actually I was here posting pretty consistently into December of 2011, over a year after McDaniels was fired.

Consistently? Nah.

[Ravage!!!]

Actually I was here posting pretty consistently into December of 2011, over a year after McDaniels was fired.

No.. you pretty much disappeared once we sent your brother out the door with his tail between his legs.

[Chef Zambini]

shanahan and bosco what a duo.

[SR]

Who is this Bosco fella?

[Bosco]

Consistently? Nah.


No.. you pretty much disappeared once we sent your brother out the door with his tail between his legs.

Sometimes I wonder if you two ever get anything correct.

Let's try this. Click on my username and "find all posts by user", then come back here and tell me how many pages of my posts exist between now and when McDaniels was fired.

Hint: The answer is 20, and you can't even find a pre-firing post of mine by that method.

[TXBRONC]

Who is this Bosco fella?

He's the dancing bear in some little circus.

[BroncoJoe]

lyEFiaUQYGE

[Ravage!!!]

Sometimes I wonder if you two ever get anything correct.

Let's try this. Click on my username and "find all posts by user", then come back here and tell me how many pages of my posts exist between now and when McDaniels was fired.

Hint: The answer is 20, and you can't even find a pre-firing post of mine by that method.

Wow.. 20. You sure proved us wrong. 20 pages with your posts in it after McD was fired, and you want to claim this proves YOUR point? What do you call "regularly?"

[Ravage!!!]

lyEFiaUQYGE

This is what I think of when I hear the name

[Ravage!!!]

Who is this Bosco fella?

I honestly think its McDaniel's brother.

[Chef Zambini]

can someone direct me to the wormhole that gets me baCK TO THE SHANAHAN DISCUSSION?

[Bosco]

Wow.. 20. You sure proved us wrong. 20 pages with your posts in it after McD was fired, and you want to claim this proves YOUR point? What do you call "regularly?"

LMFAO!!

Ravage: You quit posting here when McDaniels got fired!

Me: No I didn't.

Ravage: Yes you did! You disappeared!

Me: Here, look at all these posts I made the year after. Seriously, there are a whole bunch of them.

Ravage: So? That doesn't prove anything. You still disappeared.

Me: http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lbqpz9cYVA1qa40eu.gif

[SR]

Alright guys, I'll put this little tiff to rest. My wiener is bigger.

[Ravage!!!]

LMFAO!!

Ravage: You quit posting here when McDaniels got fired!

Me: No I didn't.

Ravage: Yes you did! You disappeared!

Me: Here, look at all these posts I made the year after. Seriously, there are a whole bunch of them.

Ravage: So? That doesn't prove anything. You still disappeared.

Me: http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lbqpz9cYVA1qa40eu.gif

yeah... that's it Bosco. I said you pretty much disappeared, and having 20 posts doesn't show otherwise.. :lol: But that's a cute way for you to try so hard to use your animated gif.

[LTC Pain]

Alright guys, I'll put this little tiff to rest. My wiener is bigger.

TMI!!! :throwrock: :peep:

[Bosco]

yeah... that's it Bosco. I said you pretty much disappeared, and having 20 posts doesn't show otherwise.. :lol: But that's a cute way for you to try so hard to use your animated gif.

Dude...it's 20 PAGES of posts.

Reading. It's fundamental, my friend.

[SR]

Dude...it's 20 PAGES of posts.

Reading. It's fundamental, my friend.

I have over 20 THOUSAND more posts than you.

[jhns]

Alright guys, I'll put this little tiff to rest. My wiener is bigger.

You're no Lamar Odom.

So I was reading this thread about the greatest coach in Broncos history, only to be interupted by McDaniels and Orton talk. I mean, how disrespectful can you get? Neither is even worthy of looking in Shanahans direction. Shoot, one was beat out by Tebow. He was also outplayed by a lot, by Tebow. The other took this franchise to its worst ever season.

So Shanahan was the best thing to ever happen to the Broncos. Elway is up there, but even he never made a SB without Shanahan being on staff. He didn't win them until Shanahan took over the team. While people constantly complained after he lost Elway, ge did keep this team competitive and far better than most teams post all time great QBs. His schemes were solid and always produced. I can only find two negatives with him, which have to do with his GM skills. He drafted poorly, at least up until his last few years here, and wasn't good with d-coordinators.

[Poet]

Uhhhh, Shanahan greater than Elway? That's a tough one for me to believe.


Elway was already one of the best players in the league without Shanahan.

[jhns]

Uhhhh, Shanahan greater than Elway? That's a tough one for me to believe.


Elway was already one of the best players in the league without Shanahan.

He never made a SB without Shanahan coaching him. Shanahan left to coach the 9ers for a time after Elway had already made it to the SB, and the team didn't go back to the SB until the same year they brought Shanahan back. He left for the Raiders job later, same thing.

[Bosco]

To be fair, Elway always credited Jim Fassel as the one who helped him take him game to the next level.

That said, it's pretty much impossible to make a list of most important Broncos and not have Shanahan in the top 3.

[slim]

Quick, someone tell my how many Super Bowls Shanny won without Elway.

Shanny > Elway :lol:

[slim]

How many playoff games has he won as a head coach without Elway.

[rationalfan]

To be fair, Elway always credited Jim Fassel as the one who helped him take him game to the next level.

That said, it's pretty much impossible to make a list of most important Broncos and not have Shanahan in the top 3.

so, should shanny be on the broncos' mt. rushmore? #crossingthestreams

[Ravage!!!]

Dude...it's 20 PAGES of posts.

Reading. It's fundamental, my friend.

you don't have 20 pages of posts, my friend.

[Ravage!!!]

How many playoff games has he won as a head coach without Elway.

How many did Walsh win without Montana? How many did Jimmy Johnson win without Aikman? How many did Noll win without Bradshaw? How many did Landry win without Staubach?

I know that Shanahan's record, and playoff appearances, were better than Noll's, and Landry's for the first ten years after they lost their HoF QB. Walsh retired after Montana, Jimmy didn't coach for 10 years after losing Aikman. Shula had a whopping 3 years between Griese and Marino.

Shanahan's record for the 10 years after losing Elway was better than any other coach, or franchise, that lost a HoF QB.

Look at how long it took San Fran after losing Young, Buffalo after losing Kelly, Miami after losing Marino, Dallas after losing Aikman, or Pittsburgh after losing Bradshaw.

[Bosco]

you don't have 20 pages of posts, my friend.

Oh?

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w19/Florida_Bronco/pic.png (http://s172.photobucket.com/user/Florida_Bronco/media/pic.png.html)

For some reason, it cut off at 19 pages that time, but since the last post on that 19th page is from 12-14-2010, my point is easily proven.

Would you like to continue grasping to a point when you have been utterly and completely proven wrong?

[Bosco]

so, should shanny be on the broncos' mt. rushmore? #crossingthestreams

Without question.

[Ravage!!!]

For some reason, it cut off at 19 pages that time, but since the last post on that 19th page is from 12-14-2010, my point is easily proven.

Would you like to continue grasping to a point when you have been utterly and completely proven wrong?

:lol:

Ohhh.. I see. You have a post in a thread that equals 20 pages. :lol:

You only have 2000 posts. Having a single post in 20 pages doesn't exactly prove you to be an "active" poster. But hey, you continue with that pompous attitude we love from you so much. :laugh:

[Ravage!!!]

so, should shanny be on the broncos' mt. rushmore? #crossingthestreams

I'm a big Shanahan supporter, but I don't think so. Had Shanahan had the opportunity to be the HC with Elway for as long as Landry was with Staubach, Noll with Bradshaw, Walsh with Montana, or Belicheck with Brady, then I could see that being the case. Shanahan was with Elway for 4 years as a HC. They would have had the opportunity to build a storied combination that would rival any of the above.

That being the case, I can understand someone mentioning his name, but I don't think he would make my top 4 faces.

[Bosco]

:lol:

Ohhh.. I see. You have a post in a thread that equals 20 pages. :lol:

You only have 2000 posts. Having a single post in 20 pages doesn't exactly prove you to be an "active" poster. But hey, you continue with that pompous attitude we love from you so much. :laugh:

http://perfectlycursedlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/laugh-gif.gif

That wasn't a thread, bozo. It was the search results for my posts. Those 20 pages are the results, every single which is a post of mine from after McDaniels was fired.

You should be out of ways to make a fool out of yourself by now, so are you ready to just give up, admit you were wrong, and maybe if you have a shred of honor (I'm not holding my breath) even go as far as to apologize for your accusation?

[slim]

How many did Walsh win without Montana? How many did Jimmy Johnson win without Aikman? How many did Noll win without Bradshaw? How many did Landry win without Staubach?


Exactly.

[Ravage!!!]

http://perfectlycursedlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/laugh-gif.gif

That wasn't a thread, bozo. It was the search results for my posts. Those 20 pages are the results, every single which is a post of mine from after McDaniels was fired.

You should be out of ways to make a fool out of yourself by now, so are you ready to just give up, admit you were wrong, and maybe if you have a shred of honor (I'm not holding my breath) even go as far as to apologize for your accusation?

What the hell are you talking about? :lol: You weren't an active poster since McDaniels left. You only have 2000 posts now, and that is inclding your propaganda period when McD was actually employed here before getting canned. You said you were an ACTIVE member... so far, you have only provided that you were present in some threads after he was fired. 2000 total posts, counting the active years of when your brother was here, doesn't exactly show you to be an "active" member....but an occasional one.

As far as "accusations" go..... the only accusation I threw at you was pointing out your pompous, know-it-all, persona...and I'm absolutely sticking that as you are the MOST arrogant pompous ass here.

[jhns]

How many playoff games has he won as a head coach without Elway.

That really isn't a good argument against Shanahan the coach. He has taken pleanty of weak teams to the playoffs, and even made the AFCCG with Jake Plummer. His coaching skills were excellent over that time. His GM skills? Not so much...

It isn't a cooincidence that we made SBs with Shanahan here, and didn't when he wasn't.

[slim]

It isn't a cooincidence that we made SBs with Shanahan here, and didn't when he wasn't.

Say what now?

Your "Elway never won a super bowl without Shanny" argument is the dumbest argument ever.

[Bosco]

What the hell are you talking about? :lol: You weren't an active poster since McDaniels left. You only have 2000 posts now, and that is inclding your propaganda period when McD was actually employed here before getting canned. You said you were an ACTIVE member... so far, you have only provided that you were present in some threads after he was fired. 2000 total posts, counting the active years of when your brother was here, doesn't exactly show you to be an "active" member....but an occasional one.

As far as "accusations" go..... the only accusation I threw at you was pointing out your pompous, know-it-all, persona...and I'm absolutely sticking that as you are the MOST arrogant pompous ass here.

I weep for the public school system of Missouri. I was almost hoping you were attempting to troll me here, but you were never clever enough to pull that off.

Let me try explaining it one more time, for the learning impaired among us.

You accused me of "disappearing" after McDaniels was fired. I proved this wrong. Each of those pages contain 25 posts, all of them belonging to me, and all of them after McDaniels was fired. 25 * 20 = 500. Approximately a quarter of my posts came in the year after McDaniels was fired.

You're wrong. Save yourself further embarrassment (you notice no one, not even your fellow McDaniel haterz, are coming to your defense here?), apologize, and be done with it. Or continue to look like a buffoon, I guess.

Oh, and you don't have to apologize for calling me arrogant. I'm very, very arrogant.

[jhns]

Say what now?

Your "Elway never won a super bowl without Shanny" argument is the dumbest argument ever.

Poor spelling aside, I think that sentence is pretty clear.

[Ravage!!!]

Say what now?

We did go to one Super Bowl (with Elway) when Shanahan wasn't the OC or the HC. However, in '84, Shanahan was the WRs coach, though. But when Shanahan left, we didn't go back to the Super Bowl until he was hired as the HC.

[slim]

Poor spelling aside, I think that sentence is pretty clear.

First, you are wrong.

Second, even if you were right, it's a dumb argument.

See Noll/Bradshaw, etc as Ravage mentioned.

[slim]

We did go to one Super Bowl (with Elway) when Shanahan wasn't the OC or the HC. However, in '84, Shanahan was the WRs coach, though. But when Shanahan left, we didn't go back to the Super Bowl until he was hired as the HC.

I guess you guys aren't going to count 1989.

[jhns]

I guess that wasn't clear. I didn't see his edit until after I hit submit.

There was no "won" in there. Shanahan came and went multiole times throughout Elways career. We only made SBs with Shanahan here. I'm sure he had nothing to do with that though...

[slim]

MO, does your calendar have 1989 on it? Or is it just mine?

[MOtorboat]

Well, I can clear up the Shanahan stuff...maybe not the Bosco v. Ravage scuffle, though...

Shanahan was the OC in 86 and 87
He was the head coach in Oakland (well, actually I think by the Super Bowl he was unemployed) in 1989 when Denver faced San Francisco.

[jhns]

We did go to one Super Bowl (with Elway) when Shanahan wasn't the OC or the HC. However, in '84, Shanahan was the WRs coach, though. But when Shanahan left, we didn't go back to the Super Bowl until he was hired as the HC.

He wasn't a receivers coach...

You guys make me sad with this disrespect of a Bronco great.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Shanahan

[slim]

Well, I can clear up the Shanahan stuff...maybe not the Bosco v. Ravage scuffle, though...

Shanahan was the OC in 86 and 87
He was the head coach in Oakland (well, actually I think by the Super Bowl he was unemployed) in 1989 when Denver faced San Francisco.

Now that I think about it, Denver may have hired him midway through the season (after he was fired by Oakland).

So I guess that 1989 super bowl run was the result of a position coach that was hired during the season. :fart:

[jhns]

First, you are wrong.

Second, even if you were right, it's a dumb argument.

See Noll/Bradshaw, etc as Ravage mentioned.

Actually, I'm not wrong. The fact that you guys don't know the basics of this teams history kind of shows me that your opinion doesn't matter.

Ravage argued that coaches didn't win after losing their star QBs. I'm not getting how that relates to Elway not making SBs without Shanahan.

[MOtorboat]

Now that I think about it, Denver may have hired him midway through the season (after he was fired by Oakland).

So I guess that 1989 super bowl run was the result of a position coach that was hired during the season. :fart:

Turns out I had my timeline wrong...

[slim]

He wasn't a receivers coach...

You guys make me sad with this disrespect of a Bronco great.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Shanahan

No disrespect at all.

But Elway is the all-time greatest Bronco. It really isn't debatable.

[MOtorboat]

Actually, I'm not wrong. The fact that you guys don't know the basics of this teams history kind of shows me that your opinion doesn't matter.

Ravage argued that coaches didn't win after losing their star QBs. I'm not getting how that relates to Elway not making SBs without Shanahan.

Shanahan was a huge part of Denver's Super Bowls, but he wasn't here in 1989, so you are wrong.

[slim]

He was hired as QB coach during the following offseason. That time from when he was fired by Oakland until he was hired by Denver was the time he claims Al Davis never paid him for, but should have.

That 1989 coaching staff was pretty good.

Chan Gailey, Mike Nolan, Wade Philips.

[jhns]

Shanahan was a huge part of Denver's Super Bowls, but he wasn't here in 1989, so you are wrong.

Pretty fast google search.

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-10-16/sports/sp-272_1_mike-shanahan

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-10-16/sports/sp-272_1_mike-shanahan

[jhns]

No disrespect at all.

But Elway is the all-time greatest Bronco. It really isn't debatable.

Then why are you debating it? lol...

[MOtorboat]

Pretty fast google search.

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-10-16/sports/sp-272_1_mike-shanahan

Fair enough.

[jhns]

It won't let me edit that post now, but I was trying to add this as the second link.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_19708898

[slim]

Then why are you debating it? lol...

I'm not.

I'm just trying to help you see how stupid your argument is.

How many super bowls has Belicheat won without Brady?

[slim]

How many super bowls has Brady won without Belicheat??

[jhns]

I'm not.

I'm just trying to help you see how stupid your argument is.

How many super bowls has Belicheat won without Brady?

I'm not sure you even understand what the argument is considering what your responses are...

Your argument is stupid. You don't even know the basics of Bronco history. Not even the SB years...

[slim]

How many super bowls has Denver been to with Mike Shanahan as the QB coach?

:fart:

[slim]

I'm not sure you even understand what the argument is considering what your responses are...

Your argument is stupid. You don't even know the basics of Bronco history. Not even the SB years...

Tell us again how the QB coach was responsible for the 1989 super bowl run.

[jhns]

Yeah! It is just a coincidence that they couldn't do anything without him coaching the offense, and made SBs when he was here. I mean, he only gave the team multiple chances to do it without him. That couldn't be the reason he moved all the way up to HC though... Nope. He had nothing to do with it!

Just lol....

[jhns]

Tell us again how the QB coach was responsible for the 1989 super bowl run.

You don't even know what happened those years, so kind of hard to take you seriously in this argument.

[Ravage!!!]

I weep for the public school system of Missouri. I was almost hoping you were attempting to troll me here, but you were never clever enough to pull that off.

Let me try explaining it one more time, for the learning impaired among us.

You accused me of "disappearing" after McDaniels was fired. I proved this wrong. Each of those pages contain 25 posts, all of them belonging to me, and all of them after McDaniels was fired. 25 * 20 = 500. Approximately a quarter of my posts came in the year after McDaniels was fired.

You're wrong. Save yourself further embarrassment (you notice no one, not even your fellow McDaniel haterz, are coming to your defense here?), apologize, and be done with it. Or continue to look like a buffoon, I guess.

Oh, and you don't have to apologize for calling me arrogant. I'm very, very arrogant.

I'm not apologizing to you for anything.

You want to claim that "disappearing" meant that you didn't post anymore, fine. If you want to get into semantics as to what was typed and what was meant, that is all on you. It's just like you to try and dissect things down to the smallest, insignificant, levels so that you can feel you were "right" on a point. We both know that the intention behind the comment was that you "posted at a much lesser rate" than you were prior to McDaniel's firing.

I'm not going to get into the stupid arguments that you want to start so that you can make yourself feel righteous purely for the sake of you feeling good about yourself. This just shows, again, how small of a person you are. Your superiority complex does not impress me. The fact that you will continue to find tiny details to attack, even when the detail you choose to make a subject is trivial at best, just so you can feel that you were "right"... makes you just that much more pathetic.

I don't look, nor need, anyone to come to "my defense" here. You aren't someone that threatens me. You are simply someone that bothers me. I find you to be more of a gnat than anything else.

As far as me "accusing" you of disappearing, why is this where you draw your line in the sand? Perhaps feeling a bit touchy and sensitive about this? Why does this hit such a nerve... is it because you know you had your nose so far up McD's ******* that everyone could see cancer from his prostate stuck to your nostrils?

You are arrogant, and you think you deserve such arrogance. I find that to be pretty funny. I find you to be a pretty funny joke.

[slim]

You don't even know what happened those years, so kind of hard to take you seriously in this argument.

I don't know what happened?

Well, I know the QB coach/OC wasn't solely responsible for the teams success. :lol:

[slim]

jhns, you do realize the greatest QB in the histroy of the NFL was leading those teams, right?

[Ravage!!!]

jhns, you do realize the greatest QB in the histroy of the NFL was leading those teams, right?

Yeah.. but we can certainly see that it truly is a Coaches and QB league. Who was the reason for the Super Bowl wins, Elway or Shanahan? I guess we can say that it was the combination, as we can see that Elway didn't win one without Shanahan... just as Steve Young didn't win a Super Bowl without Shanahan as the OC. Yet, SHanahan didn't/hasn't won one without Elway. Belicheck hasn't won without Brady...would Brady have been as good without Belichedk? :whoknows: What about Montana and Walsh? Would either one have their legacy be the same without the other?? :whoknows:

Personally, I think that Manning would have won more Super Bowls had he had someone else as the HC in INdy instead of Dungy. But we'll never know.

[MOtorboat]

Dan Reeves must have really sucked.

[slim]

I guess we can say that it was the combination


That was kind of my point. I hate the "X never won without Y" argument. It is ALWAYS a combination of coaches and players....it's the ultimate TEAM sport, FFS.

[Bosco]

I'm not apologizing to you for anything.

You want to claim that "disappearing" meant that you didn't post anymore, fine. If you want to get into semantics as to what was typed and what was meant, that is all on you. It's just like you to try and dissect things down to the smallest, insignificant, levels so that you can feel you were "right" on a point. We both know that the intention behind the comment was that you "posted at a much lesser rate" than you were prior to McDaniel's firing.

I'm not going to get into the stupid arguments that you want to start so that you can make yourself feel righteous purely for the sake of you feeling good about yourself. This just shows, again, how small of a person you are. Your superiority complex does not impress me. The fact that you will continue to find tiny details to attack, even when the detail you choose to make a subject is trivial at best, just so you can feel that you were "right"... makes you just that much more pathetic.

I don't look, nor need, anyone to come to "my defense" here. You aren't someone that threatens me. You are simply someone that bothers me. I find you to be more of a gnat than anything else.

As far as me "accusing" you of disappearing, why is this where you draw your line in the sand? Perhaps feeling a bit touchy and sensitive about this? Why does this hit such a nerve... is it because you know you had your nose so far up McD's ******* that everyone could see cancer from his prostate stuck to your nostrils?

You are arrogant, and you think you deserve such arrogance. I find that to be pretty funny. I find you to be a pretty funny joke.

Actually, it's very simple. You accused me of something that was untrue and I defended myself. You can say "oh, well what I really meant was" but the term "disappeared" is pretty clear. Rather than just show a little class and admit you were wrong you twisted in the wind and looked like a fool for an entire day. Par for the course with you really.

Thanks for the laughs though man, seriously.

[jhns]

Dan Reeves must have really sucked.

You are just now realizing this?

[MOtorboat]

You are just now realizing this?

We all don't possess your superior intellect.

[jhns]

We all don't possess your superior intellect.

Are we playing state the obvious now?

Water is wet.

[BroncoJoe]

After reading the last few pages, I feel like I just watched a chick fight.