John Clayton Lists McDaniels as One of the Coaches on the Hot Seat

[spikerman]

See #8


With all the excitement created by Brett Favre going to Minnesota, Jay Cutler going to Chicago and Matt Ryan emerging as a budding star in Atlanta, I'm starting to wonder if the NFC has finally caught up to or surpassed the AFC as a conference.


Any questions?
Have a question for John Clayton? Connect with him here.
The AFC hasn't lost to the NFC in interconference play in 13 years. The AFC has won seven of the past nine Super Bowls. The reason for the edge has been the quarterbacks. It's hard to beat Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger, Peyton Manning and others in the postseason. The AFC had the edge on defense by being ahead of the curve in the switch to a 3-4 defense.

But the NFC has made incredible strides. I look at 10 potential playoff teams in the NFC East, South and North as being the teams that could carry the NFC banner over the AFC in interconference competition this year. The NFC East is playing the AFC West. It would be stunning if the Giants, Redskins, Eagles and Cowboys don't go 11-1 or 12-0 against Denver, Oakland and Kansas City.


The NFC North is more formidable with Aaron Rodgers, Favre and Cutler in the division. The NFC North plays the AFC North. That's quietly a great battle because the AFC North has Roethlisberger, Joe Flacco and Carson Palmer. Finally, the NFC South has Ryan, Drew Brees and Jake Delhomme going against the AFC East. With the exception of Brady, the NFC South appears to have a slight quarterback edge in those matchups.

It's not that the NFC has surpassed the AFC at the top. They probably haven't. But the conference is deeper in quarterbacks. Plus, the AFC has more potentially bad teams -- Oakland, Denver, Kansas City, Jacksonville and maybe Cleveland -- than the NFC, which has the Rams, Lions and Bucs.

Here are the 10 top questions heading into the NFL regular season.


Clayton's projected standings
AFC East W L
New England 10 6
Miami 8 8
Buffalo 7 9
New York Jets 6 10
AFC North W L
Pittsburgh 12 4
Baltimore 10 6
Cincinnati 7 9
Cleveland 6 10
AFC South W L
Indianapolis 11 5
Tennessee 10 6
Houston 9 7
Jacksonville 5 11
AFC West W L
San Diego 12 4
Kansas City 4 12
Oakland 4 12
Denver 3 13
NFC East W L
New York Giants 11 5
Philadelphia 10 6
Washington 9 7
Dallas 8 8
NFC North W L
Minnesota 11 5
Chicago 10 6
Green Bay 10 6
Detroit 2 14
NFC South W L
Atlanta 10 6
Carolina 10 6
New Orleans 8 8
Tampa Bay 4 12
NFC West W L
Arizona 9 7
Seattle 9 7
San Francisco 7 9
St. Louis 4 12

AFC champion: Pittsburgh
NFC champion: New York Giants
Super Bowl winner: Pittsburgh
1. Can Brett Favre make the Minnesota Vikings a Super Bowl contender?

The Vikings were the most talented team I've seen this summer. All they needed was a quarterback who could manage the game, complete about 20 passes a game and put together game-winning scoring drives in the final two minutes of games. Despite being 39, Favre can do that. Coming off biceps tendon surgery, Favre's not going to be a gun-slinging deep thrower this season. Adrian Peterson should easily put up 1,700 rushing yards, making Favre's job that much easier. The Vikings should get 11 or 12 wins, but to go to the Super Bowl, they would need to play two home playoff games. Favre has faded in cold weather late in the season the past four years.

2. What impact will Michael Vick have on the Philadelphia Eagles?

His signing is clearly the most overrated of any I've seen in the past couple of years and it has nothing to do with Vick the player. The concept of Vick in Philadelphia doesn't fit for impact. Sure, Vick's incredible running skills scare defensive coordinators and coaches. Playing Vick, though, comes at the expense of using Donovan McNabb to his full capabilities. Remember, the Wildcat formation was good for only 5.5 yards. McNabb is worth 6.86 yards a pass attempt. Andy Reid favors the pass over the run. He prefers the screen pass to the power sweep. And I agree with McNabb that putting in Vick for five or six plays affects McNabb's rhythm with the offense. While I'm happy Vick is getting his second chance, he would have made more of an impact on other teams.

3. How big will the Wildcat offense be this season?

It will be used more, but the big impact will only be for the teams that try to work some passing plays from the formation. The Dolphins haven't shown any plays yet in which Pat White passes from the Wildcat. We'll see how that works. There aren't many teams that have Wildcat quarterbacks who pose much of a passing threat. In two games against the Dolphins, the Ravens showed ways to minimize the running impact of the Wildcat. If the Wildcat is only going to produce 5-yard running plays, the innovation will be a nice novelty but its impact will start to fade a little this season.

4. Will Terrell Owens make the Buffalo Bills a playoff team?

I still contend the Owens signing was one of the smartest of the offseason. No team needed a second wide receiver threat more than the Bills, and Owens is the perfect complement to take away some double coverage from Lee Evans. But I haven't liked what I've seen from the Bills' no-huddle offense this season. Apparently, Coach Dick Jauron didn't like it either. He fired offensive coordinator Turk Schonert on Friday. Sure, Owens has missed the preseason because of a toe injury. That's been a factor. But the Bills were outscored 31-0 in the first quarter of preseason games. Trent Edwards completed 68.4 percent of his passes, but he got only 4.97 yards an attempt. The Bills still don't look good against 3-4 defenses. And while the defense may bend but not break, I'm concerned it will be on the field too long. Owens makes them better, but it may not be good enough.

5. Will the Detroit Lions turn around now that Matt Millen is gone?

Unfortunately, no. The Lions probably will have 25 to 30 new players on the roster, but the roster is old and brittle. It still amazes me that the Lions are in perpetual rebuilding mode yet they remain one of the oldest teams in the league. For example, the average age of the current Lions starting defense is 29.82, oldest in the league. Adding Favre and Cutler to the NFC North will make it even tougher for the Lions to win a division game. The odds favor them winning two to four games, but maybe if they can get lucky, they can get to six.

6. How will the young head coaches do this season?

It's going to be a struggle. There are nine first-time head coaches, including Mike Singletary and Tom Cable, interim coaches last season. Their average age is 43.77. Mistakes are starting to mount. In Denver, Josh McDaniels, 33, couldn't get along with his two best players, losing Jay Cutler in a trade and Brandon Marshall in spirit. Raheem Morris, 33, apparently made a mistake in not knowing that Jeff Jagodzinski wasn't the right fit at offensive coordinator so he fired him Thursday. Todd Haley, 42, fired his offensive coordinator, Chan Gailey. Cable, 44, faces a major crisis if he was involved in an altercation that caused a broken jaw of an assistant coach. Of all the new coaches, the oldest will be the most successful. Jim Caldwell, 54, should have an 11- or 12-win team in Indianapolis, and Singletary, 50, will be trying to get the 49ers to the .500 mark. If the NFL gets an extension of the collective bargaining agreement with the players' union, I predict teams will start going back to the big-name, high-priced head coaches.

7. Speaking of labor talks, what is going on with CBA extension negotiations?

Very little, and that is sending the NFL down a dangerous path. The owners want some concessions from the NFLPA, but they haven't formalized what they want. Commissioner Roger Goodell is hinting the NFL is heading into an uncapped season. I respond, "Why?" To me, there are simple solutions to the complex economic problems in the NFL. Players can take a smaller percentage of the revenues knowing they will make more money from an 18-game schedule. The completely broken rookie salary scale can be traded away by the NFL giving up the ability to franchise players. My perception is that high-revenue owners can't get together with low-revenue owners on the best way to distribute shared revenues. Until they do, the players will start counting the days to a lockout.

8. What coaches are on the hot seat?

I'd list Jauron in Buffalo, Wade Phillips in Dallas, Jack Del Rio in Jacksonville, Brad Childress in Minnesota, Jim Zorn in Washington and McDaniels in Denver as being on the hottest seats. McDaniels, you ask? Didn't he just get hired? He did, but the Broncos have evolved into a version of an expansion teams this offseason. They are less talented at quarterback after the Jay Cutler trade. Here's the scariest number. They have only eight players on their roster who came to them in 2006 or earlier, and one of them, Brandon Marshall, is a malcontent. That means the Broncos are trying to replace 45 roster spots over three years. A 32-team league doesn't have a big enough pool of players to fill that much of a void.

9. Is the NFL heading toward being a league filled with 3-4 defenses?

I think the league is starting to max out on 3-4 defenses. If you include the Patriots, a dozen teams list the 3-4 as their base defense. There aren't a dozen top nose tackles and enough pass-rushing linebackers to handle such demand. The Patriots, in fact, are switching to a 4-3 defense because they have better defensive linemen than linebackers. Ironically, the Packers will have a successful transition to a 3-4 because they have enough good defensive linemen. The Broncos and Chiefs will struggle in their transition to a 3-4.

10: What should the NFL do about the dozen NFL teams that will have local television blackouts?

The simple answer would be to lift the blackouts, but you know that won't happen. The NFL operates under the simple principle that it wants its stadiums filled before putting their games on free or satellite TV. The concern is that not having the local games televised will break the fans' habit of committing Sundays to NFL games. The concerns are legit. Roger Goodell has to monitor this situation, but I don't see the blackouts being lifted.

John Clayton, a recipient of the Pro Football Hall of Fame's McCann Award for distinguished reporting, is a senior writer for ESPN.com.


http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/preview09/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=4446985

[Lonestar]

sounds about right to me but the 45 roster spots would be stupid if we did not have an almost new OLINE last year..

and frankly there was not much talent on the squad after ..........

we have had some decent drafts since 2006 before that not so good..

so that cycle started in 2006.. It had nothign to do with Josh, we have three players from 2005 and one of them is VERY VERY VERY close to the bubble..

[spikerman]

I think I see Clayton's point though. I hope McDaniels succeeds because that means the Broncos will succeed, but he blew up a team that was fairly competitive last year (the last game notwithstanding). The question is going to be, "Does Bowlen agree with him that the team had to basically start over?" If he does, then McDaniels gets two or three years to turn it around. If not, I'm not sure how much patience he's going to have.

[j3phr3y]

Premature?

[BroncoAV06]

Freaking HOF journalist. Why do they get paid?..............

Its understandable, any first time head coach is going to be looked at that way untill he proves he can head a winning team. Yes we have to wait and see what happens but I have not heard one person outside of people on these boards say the Broncos had a good off season so heat will be on.

[silkamilkamonico]

Bowlen is intrigued with the moves he's made and there's talk around the entire NFL that Denver has a great scheme put in place offensively and just needs the right QB to find it.

McDaniels on the hot seat? hardly. I especially love his reason about the team being less talented at QB, when the fact is it was Bowlen who traded Cutler and not McDaniels.

[Lonestar]

I think I see Clayton's point though. I hope McDaniels succeeds because that means the Broncos will succeed, but he blew up a team that was fairly competitive last year (the last game notwithstanding). The question is going to be, "Does Bowlen agree with him that the team had to basically start over?" If he does, then McDaniels gets two or three years to turn it around. If not, I'm not sure how much patience he's going to have.


look back at the talent on the team last year the O was good to great but almost no depth past the starters..

and Pat did not hire someone to come in and be a caretaker for mikes system.. he obviously like what NE has done the past decade when we were stagnant..

as for the defense that is half of the team did you see anyone really worth keeping there outside DJ and Champ who will be gone in a few years himself..

the coaching staff was a joke.

and the only thing worth keeping was the OLINE, TE and WR and of course QB but he did not want to play here without mike and bates....

so there are your 8-10 keepers..

[Nomad]

look back at the talent on the team last year the O was good to great but almost no depth past the starters..

and Pat did not hire someone to come in and be a caretaker for mikes system.. he obviously like what NE has done the past decade when we were stagnant..

as for the defense that is half of the team did you see anyone really worth keeping there outside DJ and Champ who will be gone in a few years himself..

the coaching staff was a joke.

and the only thing worth keeping was the OLINE, TE and WR and of course QB but he did not want to play here without mike and bates....
so there are your 8-10 keepers..


Many fail to realize this and he seems pretty damn happy to be where he is even GQ!!!

[spikerman]

look back at the talent on the team last year the O was good to great but almost no depth past the starters..

and Pat did not hire someone to come in and be a caretaker for mikes system.. he obviously like what NE has done the past decade when we were stagnant..

as for the defense that is half of the team did you see anyone really worth keeping there outside DJ and Champ who will be gone in a few years himself..

the coaching staff was a joke.

and the only thing worth keeping was the OLINE, TE and WR and of course QB but he did not want to play here without mike and bates....

so there are your 8-10 keepers.. No doubt the defense last year was a joke and the talent pool was shallow (I would add Dumervil to the keepers list), but the key comes back to Cutler. It's still very difficult to justify that move if you're not looking at it through orange-colored glasses.

I agree that something had to be done in the personnel department, but some of the early moves have been questionable. I can't speak about the quality of most of the coaching staff. I know that I wasn't very impressed with Slowik and I didn't see much improvement from the Dline (Burney I think), but other than that I didn't have much of a problem with the coaching staff.

I'm one of the people who thought that the team needed to focus on the defense in the offseason. The only thing I would have changed on the offensive side is to start bringing in bigger linemen. I firmly believe most of Denver's red zone problems are related to them not being able to "blow people off the ball". Kudos to McDaniels for bringing in bigger people.

I'm just not sure this required a complete rebuild - especially getting rid of the best player. Hopefully McDaniels proves me wrong.

[Tned]

I think everyone knows that after what has gone down with Cutler and Marshall, McDaniels put the spotlight on himself and shortened his honeymoon period. When you trade away someone like Cutler, you are going to have to make sure it doesn't look like a huge mistake.

So, yes, Clayton is right that McDaniels is on the hot seat, where with out the controversial off season, it likely would have taken him a year or two reach the famed 'hot seat'.

[CrazyHorse]

3-13 wow. Seahawks get #2 overall haha.

[Tned]

Many fail to realize this and he seems pretty damn happy to be where he is even GQ!!!

It's not that people don't realize it, it is simply that there are no facts to back it up.

[Nomad]

It's not that people don't realize it, it is simply that there are no facts to back it up.

One's demeanor is fact enough, but i guess that falls into the opinion catergory!

[Overtime]

I think I see Clayton's point though. I hope McDaniels succeeds because that means the Broncos will succeed, but he blew up a team that was fairly competitive last year (the last game notwithstanding). The question is going to be, "Does Bowlen agree with him that the team had to basically start over?" If he does, then McDaniels gets two or three years to turn it around. If not, I'm not sure how much patience he's going to have.

What scares me is the fact that Herman Edwards went into Kansas City in 2006, and dismantled the league's top rated offense in scoring and yards gained, over the span of 3 years and look how that turned out.

McDaniels has pretty much come into Denver and dismantled a Top 5 offense in less than 6 months...........:eek:

[Tned]

One's demeanor is fact enough, but i guess that falls into the opinion catergory!

What demeanor? Did any of us meat with Cutler prior to McDaniels attempting to trade him? Did any of us sit in on the meeting with McDaniels?

It's all simply conjecture on our part about 'how' it went down, but that doesn't change the fact that it went down on McDaniels' watch, and therefore he is going to be accountable for the outcome, just like every other HC in the league.

Even if it was mostly, or all, Cutler's fault, the fact that the HC couldn't resolve it without trading Cutler away, has caused the spotlight to shine brightly upon him and very likely shorten the honeymoon period, especially if one of our major weaknesses this year is QB.

[Nomad]

What demeanor? Did any of us meat with Cutler prior to McDaniels attempting to trade him? Did any of us sit in on the meeting with McDaniels?

It's all simply conjecture on our part about 'how' it went down, but that doesn't change the fact that it went down on McDaniels' watch, and therefore he is going to be accountable for the outcome, just like every other HC in the league.

Even if it was mostly, or all, Cutler's fault, the fact that the HC couldn't resolve it without trading Cutler away, has caused the spotlight to shine brightly upon him and very likely shorten the honeymoon period, especially if one of our major weaknesses this year is QB.

I believe it started with Bowlen (beating dead horse again). He promised too much, hired a coach Cutler didn't want, Cutler showed his displeasure when McD was first hired with silence and was a pain in McD's ass until the end. Cutler simply didn't want to be here the minute McD was hired and it showed. Bowlen felt bad for the promise's and sent Jay to his childhood dreamteam, da'Bears and now he's happy and GQ!!

[Tned]

I believe it started with Bowlen (beating dead horse again). He promised too much, hired a coach Cutler didn't want, Cutler showed his displeasure when McD was first hired with silence and was a pain in McD's ass until the end. Cutler simply didn't want to be here the minute McD was hired and it showed. Bowlen felt bad for the promise's and sent Jay to his childhood dreamteam, da'Bears and now he's happy and GQ!!

What do you base all of this on? Cutler not having press conference after press conference extolling his love for McDaniels in the middle of the off season? What silence? McDaniels and Cutler had met several times prior to him attempting to trade Cutler.

Maybe Bowlen did promise too much, but even that is speculation on our part. We don't know if Bowlen promised anything.

Bottom line, the head coach, especially one like McDaniels who is running the show, is judged by what happens. He traded Cutler, and hasn't been able to get Marshall in line, so if the offense sucks, it is going to reflect on the head coach that first failed to trade Cutler for Cassell and when that blew up in his face, traded Cutler to Chicago.

Fair or not, that's why McDaniels gets paid the big bucks.

[Tned]

3

you make so good points .. but lets look at it deeper..

I was one wondering what eh hell Pat was doing because we did indeed have a prolific O but when you start looking and the numbers we sucked when it counted..RED zone..

now was that jay and BM wanting to make that big play.. hell I do not know..

but play calling and execution sucked for most of the year and we fell apart late..


I see that when interviewing Pat liked Josh for the young and energetic guy and Spags (the one I wanted) as a duh..

Pat has to have admired NE for taking our spot in the light as being a young and dynamic team since our last SB wins.. they have dominated the AFC along with PIT.. pat was looking for magic and until jay got a big head and wanted out.. I think we would be still looking at a 8-8 season considering the schedule..

When you look at the really poor depth of players on Offense past the starters we had no where to go but up.. we started rebuilding in 05 with the heavy DL draft and on O in 06 but this team had such lousy drafts and player acquisitions from 2000 to 05 especially on D we had not choice but to start over on D..


I think Josh is less on the hot seat than some do and I suspect if we do not show better play over the next two years ten the seat will get hot..

While winning is GOOD losing to trap teams and getting your ass kicked by the likes of DET, SAN (3 or 4 times) OAK BUF. was the beginning of the end..

You realize that DEN was the second to last team to lose to the 1-23 lions, since our loss.. and that one was a beat down..

I'm trying to follow the logic. Because the Broncos were one of the best team sin the NFL at moving the ball, but only middle of the pack in scoring, it is Cutler and Marshall's fault, so losing one or both of them is going to somehow improve our offense? :confused:

[silkamilkamonico]

I think everyone knows that after what has gone down with Cutler and Marshall, McDaniels put the spotlight on himself and shortened his honeymoon period. When you trade away someone like Cutler, you are going to have to make sure it doesn't look like a huge mistake.

So, yes, Clayton is right that McDaniels is on the hot seat, where with out the controversial off season, it likely would have taken him a year or two reach the famed 'hot seat'.

Does Bowlen put himself on the hot seat, considering he was the one that traded Cutler, and not McDaniels?

[Tned]

Does Bowlen put himself on the hot seat, considering he was the one that traded Cutler, and not McDaniels?

Of course not, he is the owner and hired McDaniels to run the team. McDaniels attempted to trade Cutler (by his own admission without discussing it with Bowlen), he failed to complete the trade, it blew up in his face and in the end Cutler was traded. Clearly, any 'team' responsibility for what went down lands on McDaniels.

[spikerman]

Does Bowlen put himself on the hot seat, considering he was the one that traded Cutler, and not McDaniels?

Do you honestly believe that McDaniels had nothing to do with it? My guess is that McDaniels put the bug in Bowlen's ear. It may work out in the long run, but for the life of me I can't see how.

[Watchthemiddle]

:deadhorse::deadhorse:

[Tned]

:deadhorse::deadhorse:

It's not a requirement to participate in a thread you have no interest in. It isn't a dead horse if people want to discuss it. At least we aren't still carrying on feuds that date back to Plummer. ;)

[spikerman]

:deadhorse::deadhorse:

Agreed. I didn't post the link to rehash the Cutler thing. I'm as guilty as anybody, but I'm done talking about that. Anyway, so do you all think Clayton is right that with all of the things that have gone wrong this offseason that McDaniels is already feeling the heat?

[silkamilkamonico]

Do you honestly believe that McDaniels had nothing to do with it? My guess is that McDaniels put the bug in Bowlen's ear. It may work out in the long run, but for the life of me I can't see how.

Do you honestly believe Bowlen is going to hold McDaniels accountable for something he(Bowlen) did? That's absurd.


Of course not, he is the owner and hired McDaniels to run the team. McDaniels attempted to trade Cutler (by his own admission without discussing it with Bowlen), he failed to complete the trade, it blew up in his face and in the end Cutler was traded. Clearly, any 'team' responsibility for what went down lands on McDaniels.

I think you're wrong. McDaniels tried reaching out to Cutler. Cutler even said he was getting ready to attend the mandatory workouts the following month. Bowlen was the one that traded him, and he's going to put McDaniels on the hot seat for something he did? Again, that's absurd.

This "hot seat" talk is ridiculous. Only Bowlen can fire McDniels. The NFL can't. Bowlen isn't going to fire McDaniels regzrdless of what happens this season.

[Nomad]

:deadhorse::deadhorse:

You're right this has been beaten to death and no one's opinion will change on the matter!

[spikerman]

It's not a requirement to participate in a thread you have no interest in. It isn't a dead horse if people want to discuss it. At least we aren't still carrying on feuds that date back to Plummer. ;)

I have to admit that makes me laugh.

[Tned]

I have to admit that makes me laugh.

I just found those dead horse smilies ironic, since I had to endure two game day threads of two guys fighting a fight that goes back to whether or not Plummer sucked. Based on that timeframe, we should be talking about Cutler well into the next decade.


Do you honestly believe Bowlen is going to hold McDaniels accountable for something he(Bowlen) did? That's absurd.

I think you're wrong. McDaniels tried reaching out to Cutler. Cutler even said he was getting ready to attend the mandatory workouts the following month. Bowlen was the one that traded him, and he's going to put McDaniels on the hot seat for something he did? Again, that's absurd.

This "hot seat" talk is ridiculous. Only Bowlen can fire McDniels. The NFL can't. Bowlen isn't going to fire McDaniels regzrdless of what happens this season.

What Bowlen did? Where does that come from. Yes, Bowlen said that in the end it was his decision to trade Cutler, but that is likely more about taking heat off McDaniels than anything.

McDaniels has said that he attempted to trade Cutler without ever telling Bowlen. Following that, Bowlen talked about McDaniels making rookie mistakes.

I really don't where you get this "Bowlen did it" idea. I can 'sort of' understand the "Cutler forced it" argument, but nobody is claiming that Bowlen created the whole fiasco.


Agreed. I didn't post the link to rehash the Cutler thing. I'm as guilty as anybody, but I'm done talking about that. Anyway, so do you all think Clayton is right that with all of the things that have gone wrong this offseason that McDaniels is already feeling the heat?

Yes, the head coach bears all responsibility. We have seen coaches get fired after a couple years of bad injuries. It's the coaches job to win. If he makes moves that puts the team further away from winning, then he is going to put himself on the hotseat.

Right now, we don't know whether or not He's done that. What we do know is that he traded his pro-bowl, franchise QB away. He picked up a defender with the first round pick that so far isn't looking great (but I have high hopes for Ayers to pan out eventually) and he traded away one of Denver's first round picks for a CB in the 2nd round. If the Broncos struggles this year as many predict, that could be a top 5 pick that was traded for Smith.

On top of that, we have the whole Marshall fiasco. Again, regardless of who's primarily at fault, ultimately, it is the head coaches job to deal with issues that come up and put the team on the field with the best chance of winning. If Marshall and Cutler aren't on the field, he's going to have to prove that he can put an offense out there that is just as good as when those players were on the team.

[OrangeHoof]

McDaniels is safe for this year because, otherwise, it makes Bowlen and his top guys look like the idiots for hiring him. Year Two will be the hot seat if Josh doesn't produce and Year Three will be fatal if the Broncos are not at least 8-8.

[silkamilkamonico]

What Bowlen did? Where does that come from. Yes, Bowlen said that in the end it was his decision to trade Cutler, but that is likely more about taking heat off McDaniels than anything.

Bowlen pulled the trigger. Bowlen was the one that lifted the "we'renot trading ay Cutler" argument. Aside from that, it's irrelevant.

This talk of "Josh McDaniels on the hot seat" is ridiculous, specifically when considering this organization has one lousy playoff win, and one lousy AFCWest title, in the last 10 years.

It's not like this is the Chargers argument, where they own the AFCWest and are looking for a coach that can take them to the next level, and have yet to find him. This organization is looking for some sort of stability within the team, one it hasn't seen since the 1990's. It isn't going to get fixed in 1 season, and it shouldn't expect to be fixed.

[G_Money]

Clayton's predicted record would indeed be trouble for McDaniels. Not as in "he'll be fired after this year" but it would ratchet up the head for next year something fierce. That'd be a big hole to climb out of, and he'd almost have to post a winning record in 2010 then to keep his job, I would think.

I don't think we'll be that bad, partly because Nolan's defense shouldn't be quite the sieve that Slowik's was. Nothing really could be, honestly. :tsk: I don't think we'll be great, but 6-10, 7-9 seems a reachable mark. We do play Oakland and KC twice each still (two of his other worst teams in the league) so that should be at least 2 wins. Only winning one of the rest seems unlikely to me.

We'll see. If Orton's hand is jacked up all year and Simms doesn't cut it when he's inserted, it could be an even longer year than anticipated. But while I think Josh shot himself in the foot with Cutler and Marshall, I don't think he sabotaged this year badly enough to be on a hot seat right now.

Give it a coupla years. He's got time to get a bit of a track record to judge him by. The absolute catastrophe Clayton is predicting seems a little steep.

~G

[CrazyHorse]

If we repeat the Lions performance there's no way McDaniels keep his Job.
Not that we'd go 0-16 but he could be gone sooner rather than later.
Then everyone that hates McDaniels will be happy that we have NO coach.

[Shazam!]

Oh God this is CRAZY.

How could McDaniels be on the hot seat ALREADY? Ridiculous!

Because Denver lost their QB (which wasn't entirely his fault, Cutler did all he could to ruin things) almost gives him a pass. Then, the Orton factor? If Orton duds and Brandstater gets some meaningless game starts to see what he is and if he can be a starting QB in the future for the Broncos and plays even remotely decently, that gives McD even more leeway to develop a product.

The only way he's fired after this season is if Denver wins 1 or 2 games.

If they are marginally respectable but have a bad season this year (5-7 wins) and can't get to .500 or above next year he'll be gone.

Especially if the defense becomes respectable, he's almost guaranteed to stay regardless of how Denver finishes. That would mean he did something Shanahan couldn't do in two seasons, stop the bleeding on defense.

I don't even pay attention to what ESPN says anymore. Too many of them are just observers like us.

[sneakers]

http://www.liquidmatrix.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/mackey.png

[claymore]

Wade Phillips got 2 years and didnt trade Elway, or Sharpe.

[roomemp]

The only way McDaniels gets canned is if we go 3-13 or worse.......There is no way Mr B will have Shanahan's and McDaniel's salary on the books and neither are the coaches.......Saying that, there is no way this team goes 3-13........Thats the record a team has when it has no talent and poor coaching. We have more talent than people give us credit for and our coaching is solid. McDaniels can call one hell of an offense game and Nolan can attack attack attack......We go 6-10 at the absolute worse and that record will be a product of the schedule. If we had an easier schedule.......I would say this team could seriously push for a Division Crown.

[Ravage!!!]

Of course he's in the Hot Seat. You do NOT trade away your franchise/stud QB for a career back-up, and simply "get away" scott free as if nothing happened.

You don't make a move to a 34 defense without some kind of resemblance of the personnel for it, without having to SHOW taht you can get it done.

THIS is why I've been saying that Orton getting hurt could possibly be the BEST thing that happened to McDaniels. Its a WIN-WIN situation for him. If he loses (rather, WHEN he loses) this season.... he will always have the "I had to start with a rookie QB due to injury" excuse... whether he actually SAYS it or no, its understood. If he wins...he'll have the "yeah, and we started out with a rookie QB" to make it even that much better.

He can only hope that they can stretch Orton's injury out for the first four-five weeks of this season. Then the rest will be GIVEN to him. The defenders will say "yeah but we had to start a rookie..we could have won those 4.. now Orton is out of rhythm, it will take him a few games to get back.

I think we are a 4 win team..... hopefully

[Ravage!!!]

I don't even pay attention to what ESPN says anymore. Too many of them are just observers like us.

as opposed to all the other stations/sites that have the clairvoyant writers. :beer:

[claymore]

The only way McDaniels gets canned is if we go 3-13 or worse.......There is no way Mr B will have Shanahan's and McDaniel's salary on the books and neither are the coaches.......Saying that, there is no way this team goes 3-13........Thats the record a team has when it has no talent and poor coaching. We have more talent than people give us credit for and our coaching is solid. McDaniels can call one hell of an offense game and Nolan can attack attack attack......We go 6-10 at the absolute worse and that record will be a product of the schedule. If we had an easier schedule.......I would say this team could seriously push for a Division Crown.

Which is highly possible (3-13). Shannahan will have a job next year guaranteed. Which free's up money.

With the Money we save on a top 5 pick, and the 7 mill a year from Shannahans contract, we can afford to end the JMCD experiment.

If, it is deemed a failure.

[spikerman]

I think if McDaniels had moved a little slower in the personnel department he would have more time. He could have used the reasoning that he had to find the pieces of the puzzle to add to certain areas (defense) and that he was installing a new scheme which takes time, etc. I think growing pains would be a reasonable expectation in that case, BUT since he came in and basically blew up the team I think that he's on a much shorter leash. Like I said before, maybe he did the right thing and I hope it works out, but if it doesn't it's on him. It's like they say in the military during war time - "You broke it - you own it". That's my $.02 anyway.

[Nomad]

How could McDaniels be on the hot seat ALREADY? Ridiculous!



True Shazam! I agree with all of post but McDaniel's isn't free from error but I believe Bowlen will give McDaniels his due time to prove himself. No it's not all on McDaniels with the soap opera at Dove Valley. I believe Bowlen has alot to do with the final decision to trade the BRONCOS ex QB and Marshall's anger was there before McDaniel's became HC....he's pissed at the BRONCOS organization period. Bowlen knows this and again will give McDaniels his 2 to 3 yrs.

[SmilinAssasSin27]

eh...who cares how many players ya lose, when the team wasn't fvery good to begin with. And by the way, McD only dumped em in 1 season. Shanny was responsible for the other 2.

[Tned]

True Shazam! I agree with all of post but McDaniel's isn't free from error but I believe Bowlen will give McDaniels his due time to prove himself. No it's not all on McDaniels with the soap opera at Dove Valley. I believe Bowlen has alot to do with the final decision to trade the BRONCOS ex QB and Marshall's anger was there before McDaniel's became HC....he's pissed at the BRONCOS organization period. Bowlen knows this and again will give McDaniels his 2 to 3 yrs.

We don't see eye-to-eye on the Cutler thing, mostly because I see it as even if Bowlen made the final decision, he was put in that position by McDaniels trying to trade Cutler for Cassell, something that was roundly criticized by experts around the league. It doesn't excuse Cutler's behavior, but McDaniels started that ball rolling.

That said, I think something you posted might be the main factor in whether McDaniels is or will be on the hot seat, and that is how much Bowlen, and possibly Ellis, believe McDaniels has created the "As Dove Valley Turns" soap opera. If they think that McDaniels inherited most of these problems, and has done as good a job in dealing with them as he could be expected, then there is probably nothing to this hot seat talk. If on the other hand, Bowlen/Ellis put some or all the blame for the soap opera on moves that McDaniels has made (or tried to make) and on his people skills, then he might have much less of a honeymoon period than most young, rookie head coaches.

Unfortunately for us fans, we have no clue as to what really happened in Dove Valley over the offseason, so we have no clue whether Bowlen is happy or not, or if McDaniels is on the hot seat.


I think if McDaniels had moved a little slower in the personnel department he would have more time. He could have used the reasoning that he had to find the pieces of the puzzle to add to certain areas (defense) and that he was installing a new scheme which takes time, etc. I think growing pains would be a reasonable expectation in that case, BUT since he came in and basically blew up the team I think that he's on a much shorter leash. Like I said before, maybe he did the right thing and I hope it works out, but if it doesn't it's on him. It's like they say in the military during war time - "You broke it - you own it". That's my $.02 anyway.

With the caveat of what I posted above, I think any head coaches is judged first on wins and losses, but if the wins aren't there, is he making moves to get a team backing to winning as soon as possible.

If the defense is significantly improved, then that's going to go in his favor. If the offense is significantly worse, that will go against him. In all cases, he has clearly been given the keys to the kingdom and is calling the shots, so if some of these moves backfire on him, if he can't win with Simms/Orton, then he's going to be blamed for it.

[Lonestar]

While he is judged on W-L I have always believed that in some areas the last couple of years DEN has truly been lousy in certain areas.

While we had a great 20's team inside the 20's we left a lot to be desired. Along with perhaps the worst D last year and ST well God only knows we have no where to go but up.

Also not playing well at home and last but not least 3-4 blowouts a year.

If we see improvements in all our weak areas I believe that will give Josh a lot of breathing room even though we may not win big.

[Shazam!]

as opposed to all the other stations/sites that have the clairvoyant writers. :beer:

I pay no attention to what the 'experts and analysts' say on any station, network, website, etc. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[NightTrainLayne]

Two things.

1. We are not going 3-13. We are better than that.

2. McD didn't attempt to trade Cutler without talking to Bowlen. That is not a good-faith interpretation of events. McD has said that they didn't even seriously consider the initial offer, and that's why he didn't even bother to discuss it with Bowlen.

Anyone who believes that McD tried to do that is really stretching and is just actively looking for a reason to be critical. Twisting his words like that is really unfair. The fact that he didn't discuss it with Bowlen is actually evidence of how low-level, and unrealistic that initial telephone call was.

[Ravage!!!]

Two things.

1. We are not going 3-13. We are better than that.

2. McD didn't attempt to trade Cutler without talking to Bowlen. That is not a good-faith interpretation of events. McD has said that they didn't even seriously consider the initial offer, and that's why he didn't even bother to discuss it with Bowlen.

Anyone who believes that McD tried to do that is really stretching and is just actively looking for a reason to be critical. Twisting his words like that is really unfair. The fact that he didn't discuss it with Bowlen is actually evidence of how low-level, and unrealistic that initial telephone call was.

So you believed he 'just picked up the phone'

not sure what that has to do with the discussion here.... but I would have to disagree with you if you think he just picked up the phone. He actively tried to trade away Cutler. Now... whether thats with or without Bowlen's knowledge, we won't know. Bowlen stated that he thought our coach has made some rookie mistakes this offseason. THat could very well be about the trade, or about the draft, Bowlen didn't elaborate.

Either way... he did trade that QB away.. and that decision alone (imo) will put his butt in a hotseat for the next 2 years. Its that one decision that will plague his coaching career, and especially this season when our offense COULD ahve been explosive.

As much as I like your enthusiasm..... we very easily could be a 3-13 team. We just aren't that good in MOST of our positions.

[Simple Jaded]

McDaniels should be fired for F'ing up the QB situation alone, the level of incompetence he displayed was staggering, he had better hope he can coach Orton up or Bowlen would have to reconsider Joe Ellis' (Who should be first out the door, regardless) position on to hiring him.

McDaniels would be free to take his hand-picked "GM" with him, too, he's going to have to be a coaching phenom to save both of their jobs. The Broncos, their players and their fans have every reason to expect a 10-6 or better, and a playoff appearence THIS season, Josh McDaniels is that good.......

[claymore]

McDaniels should be fired for F'ing up the QB situation alone, the level of incompetence he displayed was staggering, he had better hope he can coach Orton up or Bowlen would have to reconsider Joe Ellis' (Who should be first out the door, regardless) position on to hiring him.

McDaniels would be free to take his hand-picked "GM" with him, too, he's going to have to be a coaching phenom to save both of their jobs. The Broncos, their players and their fans have every reason to expect a 10-6 or better, and a playoff appearence THIS season, Josh McDaniels is that good.......

Heell yeah.

[claymore]

I would also like to point out....

For all we know Bowlen is furious at what McDaniels has done to this team. It is plausable that Bowlen flushes this turd before the draft next year. If Bowlen is unhappy with the results.

[Ravage!!!]

I would also like to point out....

For all we know Bowlen is furious at what McDaniels has done to this team. It is plausable that Bowlen flushes this turd before the draft next year. If Bowlen is unhappy with the results.

Its very possible.... especially if he puts up a 3-13, 2-14 type season

[Tned]

Two things.

1. We are not going 3-13. We are better than that.

2. McD didn't attempt to trade Cutler without talking to Bowlen. That is not a good-faith interpretation of events. McD has said that they didn't even seriously consider the initial offer, and that's why he didn't even bother to discuss it with Bowlen.

Anyone who believes that McD tried to do that is really stretching and is just actively looking for a reason to be critical. Twisting his words like that is really unfair. The fact that he didn't discuss it with Bowlen is actually evidence of how low-level, and unrealistic that initial telephone call was.

Let's be fair, there are a lot of bad faith interpretations of what went down. We all have very few facts, so fill in the 95% of the details that are missing with the way we 'believe' they went down.

I go in the direction I do for two reasons.

1. I subscribe to the theory that everything that happens with the teams, is the coaches responsibility, especially if they are a coach with total authority, which is what McDAniels appears to have.

2. There is so much, "it was all Cutler's fault, McDaniels did nothing but answer the phone and say no, Cutler forced McDaniels to trade him."

So, as I have said many times, we don't have enough details to really know what went down, but here is what we do know.


McDaniels admitted that the team got involved in trade discussions for Cassel, who instead was dealt to the Kansas City Chiefs. However, he said any perception Cutler felt that the team could still trade him was misleading.

"That's what we have communicated ever since the deal with Cassel didn't happen," McDaniels said. "Other teams have called but we're not interested in getting draft picks for Jay. I never made a statement [Saturday] that 'you can be traded at any time.' They asked a question and I told them it was the time of year when people inquire about your team. Your job, as a head coach and general manager, is to listen and not bypass any opportunity to help your team improve. I think most people [in the NFL] feel the same way. You make smart, educated decisions that are best for your football team."

Cutler feels like McDaniels lost his credibility with him when he initially denied to the quarterback that the Broncos tried to acquire Cassel only to admit it later.

"Before this trade for Cassel thing ever came up, in the two weeks or so I had spent with McDaniels, he was basically telling me that he came to Denver because he wanted to coach me and that we needed to trust each other," Cutler said. "He's never been critical to me. But trust now? How can I trust him now?"
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3983805



In a wide-ranging exclusive interview, his first since a chaotic series of events began in mid-December, the Broncos' owner and CEO declares:

• Even now, he doesn't understand why former quarterback Jay Cutler wouldn't return his calls and wanted out of Denver.

• The Broncos will "probably not" win the Super Bowl next season.

• He would have preferred that the Broncos had drafted more defensive players last weekend.

• He has turned over additional organizational responsibilities to chief operating officer Joe Ellis.

• His new coach, Josh McDaniels, committed "rookie mistakes," but he fully supports him and is growing more assured he will be outstanding in the long term.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_12281980

So, we don't know what went down. We do know that McDaniels was involved in trade talks to get Cassell, but was not interested in simply trading Jay for draft picks (which reinforces what seems obvious, that he was interested in trading Jay for Cassell).

As long as fans are going to blindly follow the "nobody did anything wrong but Cutler" path, I am going to be a counter-balance for that line of posting.

[NightTrainLayne]

Let's be fair, there are a lot of bad faith interpretations of what went down. We all have very few facts, so fill in the 95% of the details that are missing with the way we 'believe' they went down.

I go in the direction I do for two reasons.

1. I subscribe to the theory that everything that happens with the teams, is the coaches responsibility, especially if they are a coach with total authority, which is what McDAniels appears to have.

2. There is so much, "it was all Cutler's fault, McDaniels did nothing but answer the phone and say no, Cutler forced McDaniels to trade him."

So, as I have said many times, we don't have enough details to really know what went down, but here is what we do know.






So, we don't know what went down. We do know that McDaniels was involved in trade talks to get Cassell, but was not interested in simply trading Jay for draft picks (which reinforces what seems obvious, that he was interested in trading Jay for Cassell).

As long as fans are going to blindly follow the "nobody did anything wrong but Cutler" path, I am going to be a counter-balance for that line of posting.

So, it seems as though you are admitting that you don't really believe the argument that you are making, but instead just trying to balance out extremists from the "Cutler is the one to blame" camp.

Well, I am not in that camp.

I am trying to be a part of the "let's be real" camp. To most stories there is three versions. This one would have, McD's, Cutler's and the truth.

You are right that none of us have the entire story and can't know for sure what the truth is, but stating that McD "SAID HIMSELF" that he actively tried to trade Cutler without Bowlen's permission is a total revamping of what McD said. In no way can you take McD's statement and believe that he said that. What he SAID is 180 degrees the opposite of what you are trying to make it out to be.

I guess there's no room around here for folks in the middle.

[Simple Jaded]

There are four sides to this story:

1) Jay Cutler's side.

2) The Broncos/McDaniels side.

3) The Truth.

And 4) What Pat Bowlen remembers.......

[Tned]

So, it seems as though you are admitting that you don't really believe the argument that you are making, but instead just trying to balance out extremists from the "Cutler is the one to blame" camp.

Well, I am not in that camp.

I am trying to be a part of the "let's be real" camp. To most stories there is three versions. This one would have, McD's, Cutler's and the truth.

You are right that none of us have the entire story and can't know for sure what the truth is, but stating that McD "SAID HIMSELF" that he actively tried to trade Cutler without Bowlen's permission is a total revamping of what McD said. In no way can you take McD's statement and believe that he said that. What he SAID is 180 degrees the opposite of what you are trying to make it out to be.

I guess there's no room around here for folks in the middle.

I have been one of the few in the middle on this one. I have said from day one that from what I saw, both McDaniels and Cutler handled it wrong. It doesn't get much more middle than that.

However, there is no evidence that all that McDaniels did was take a phone call and said, "no, we aren't interested". McDaniels has admitted to talking about trading Cutler, and then stated that he was no longer looking to trade Cutler just "for draft picks".

It gets a little disheartening to me with all the revisionist history that goes on. Marshall is a crappy receiver that just looks good because Cutler (who was a lousy QB) threw to him too much.

Cutler was a lousy QB that just threw to Marshall and had stats no better than Orton's prior to Orton's injury.

Cutler and Marshall both made it clear from the moment that Shanahan was fired that they wouldn't play in Denver. That Cutler forced the whole thing.

The facts as we know it (with Cutler)


Shanahan fired.
Bowlen talks to Cutler and Cutler isn't happy but understands.
Bowlen says Jay is now the man around here.
Cutler says that Bowlen said that he was going to suggest the new coach keeps Bates and four other coaches on (something like that).
McDaniels is hired
Bates leaves for a college job (can't remember if he was fired or demoted or just left)
McDaniels in some form or fashion is involved in trade talks to trade Cutler for Cassell (and presumably something else) -- he later says that he never told Bowlen about it, because the trade fell through.
McDaniels and Broncos go into media blackout mode.
Cutler says that McDaniels denied having talks to trade him.
Broncos PR guy makes a one sentence statement about Cutler being the teams QB.
The next day, McDaniels repeats the PR guys statement word for word.
Broncos and Cutler meet and they have different opinions of how the meeting went (quotes posted earlier in this thread)
Cutler doesn't return Bowlen's calls
Cutler is traded.


Now, I might have missed something, but from memory, that is it. Based on what we know, what reporters have said, and what McDaniels have said, we can conclude that he was involved in talks to trade Cutler, and reportedly because he entered the talks late, he could not pull off the trade.

Either because McDaniels did in fact first deny that he talked about trading Cutler, or purely because Jay gets his panties in a wad, their relationship falls apart. Jay appears to want an apology and a commitment that he isn't still on the block, and Josh appears to want to maintain the "I'm the boss and will do anything that is in the best interest of the team."

Anyway, based on the facts, what little there is of them, that's the way I see how things went down. Am I wrong? Very good chance, but that's what happens when any of us speculate on the 95% of the details we don't know. I am not speculating anymore than the people that say, "all he did is pick up the phone and say, NO".

[MOtorboat]

However, there is no evidence that all that McDaniels did was take a phone call and said, "no, we aren't interested". McDaniels has admitted to talking about trading Cutler, and then stated that he was no longer looking to trade Cutler just "for draft picks".

By saying this, you firmly supplant yourself on one side of the argument, because...well...there is evidence that that's all he did.

[Tned]

By saying this, you firmly supplant yourself on one side of the argument, because...well...there is evidence that that's all he did.

Really, where? If there is, then I will retract my previous statements.

[Dean]

By saying this, you firmly supplant yourself on one side of the argument, because...well...there is evidence that that's all he did.

I must have missed that evidence. Please post a link; I would appreciate it.

[MOtorboat]

Really, where? If there is, then I will retract my previous statements.


I must have missed that evidence. Please post a link; I would appreciate it.

"We were late to the party" is all the evidence I need to know that the idea to trade Cutler was not McDaniels', but I guess most people don't believe McDaniels' words, anyway, so why should I be surprised?

He was called. He contemplated. He said no. That's what happened. Sorry to burst anyone's bubble (again), but that's what happened. The more and more things come out, and things are said it becomes even more obvious, unless all you want to do is hate on McDaniels, then it turns into this wild, fantastic, imaginary tale of McDaniels actually initiating the trade-talks, which is pure lunacy and utterly false.

[T.K.O.]

What scares me is the fact that Herman Edwards went into Kansas City in 2006, and dismantled the league's top rated offense in scoring and yards gained, over the span of 3 years and look how that turned out.

McDaniels has pretty much come into Denver and dismantled a Top 5 offense in less than 6 months...........:eek:

news flash......cutler quit the broncos....
therefore more changes where needed on the o as well as the D

[Tned]

"We were late to the party" is all the evidence I need to know that the idea to trade Cutler was not McDaniels', but I guess most people don't believe McDaniels' words, anyway, so why should I be surprised?

He was called. He contemplated. He said no. That's what happened. Sorry to burst anyone's bubble (again), but that's what happened. The more and more things come out, and things are said it becomes even more obvious, unless all you want to do is hate on McDaniels, then it turns into this wild, fantastic, imaginary tale of McDaniels actually initiating the trade-talks, which is pure lunacy and utterly false.

Once again, it's either black or white.

I don't hate McDaniels, I have been very supportive about what he has done this trainging camp and in preperation for the season. It has nothing to do with "hate on McDaniels".

What you did is not proof that he picked up the phone and said no. In his own words, "That's what we have communicated ever since the deal with Cassel didn't happen," McDaniels said. "Other teams have called but we're not interested in getting draft picks for Jay."

Ever since the deal with Cassel didn't happen, other teams have called but we're not interested in getting draft picks for Jay.

That is not, we took a call and said no, that implies they were interested in trading Jay for a player, not picks. The deal for Cassel didn't happen.

Come on MO, there is no evidence he picked up the phone and said, "not interested."

[NightTrainLayne]

I have been one of the few in the middle on this one. I have said from day one that from what I saw, both McDaniels and Cutler handled it wrong. It doesn't get much more middle than that.

However, there is no evidence that all that McDaniels did was take a phone call and said, "no, we aren't interested". McDaniels has admitted to talking about trading Cutler, and then stated that he was no longer looking to trade Cutler just "for draft picks".

It gets a little disheartening to me with all the revisionist history that goes on. Marshall is a crappy receiver that just looks good because Cutler (who was a lousy QB) threw to him too much.

Cutler was a lousy QB that just threw to Marshall and had stats no better than Orton's prior to Orton's injury.

Cutler and Marshall both made it clear from the moment that Shanahan was fired that they wouldn't play in Denver. That Cutler forced the whole thing.

The facts as we know it (with Cutler)


Shanahan fired.
Bowlen talks to Cutler and Cutler isn't happy but understands.
Bowlen says Jay is now the man around here.
Cutler says that Bowlen said that he was going to suggest the new coach keeps Bates and four other coaches on (something like that).
McDaniels is hired
Bates leaves for a college job (can't remember if he was fired or demoted or just left)
McDaniels in some form or fashion is involved in trade talks to trade Cutler for Cassell (and presumably something else) -- he later says that he never told Bowlen about it, because the trade fell through.
McDaniels and Broncos go into media blackout mode.
Cutler says that McDaniels denied having talks to trade him.
Broncos PR guy makes a one sentence statement about Cutler being the teams QB.
The next day, McDaniels repeats the PR guys statement word for word.
Broncos and Cutler meet and they have different opinions of how the meeting went (quotes posted earlier in this thread)
Cutler doesn't return Bowlen's calls
Cutler is traded.


Now, I might have missed something, but from memory, that is it. Based on what we know, what reporters have said, and what McDaniels have said, we can conclude that he was involved in talks to trade Cutler, and reportedly because he entered the talks late, he could not pull off the trade.

Either because McDaniels did in fact first deny that he talked about trading Cutler, or purely because Jay gets his panties in a wad, their relationship falls apart. Jay appears to want an apology and a commitment that he isn't still on the block, and Josh appears to want to maintain the "I'm the boss and will do anything that is in the best interest of the team."

Anyway, based on the facts, what little there is of them, that's the way I see how things went down. Am I wrong? Very good chance, but that's what happens when any of us speculate on the 95% of the details we don't know. I am not speculating anymore than the people that say, "all he did is pick up the phone and say, NO".

I'm behind you a lot of the way on this. I get very upset at the revisionist history as well.

After the trade I still had Cutler in my sig for MONTHS. I don't think I changed it until May or so. I never understood how the whole of Bronco fandom could so quickly do a 180 on him.

Marshall as well, although there is a little more reason to sour on Marshall I do believe. But still, for some to claim that he is a talentless hack is unbelievable.

What pissed me off in your statement earlier was you trying to say that McD had admitted himself to trying to trade Cutler without Bowlen's permission. That is just out-and-out false. And it's just as extreme and unwarranted of a point of view as those who believe that Cutler just threw a tantrum and forced his way out of Denver.

If you want to believe that McD tried to trade Cutler without Bowlen's permission, then that's fine, and I don't really have a problem with anyone believing that, although I believe otherwise.

The problem I have is you saying that McD said himself that this was the case. Because what McD has said himself is the opposite.

And it's that kind of thing that gets repeated a few times, and next thing you know it's gospel.

There is evidence that all McD did was have discussions about trading Cutler because that's what McD has said. Usually first-hand testimony is considered evidence.

Did he do more than just "answer the phone"? Undoubtedly he did.

But the overwhelming fact of the matter is that a trade didn't take place for Cassel. Based on the parameters of the trade discussions that we know there is no reason that the trade wouldn't have happened if the Broncos wanted it to happen. Cutler was the linch-pin of that trade. If McD had really WANTED to trade him in that deal, then it would have happened.

Can anyone really come up with a plausible scenario where McD is pushing Cutler in that deal and one of the other teams backs out? New England eventually traded Cassell for much less. Tampa Bay had a ton to gain by that deal.

The only team that would have conceivably put the brakes on that potential deal would have been the Broncos.

Should Cutler be upset that it was even discussed? Sure. It would go against human nature not to.

Did Cutler and his agent seize on this to make a stand on his contract renegotiation? Probably so. Especially considering that this was the time in the process in which Shanny usually resigned his big-name guys. It's very possible that Shanny had communicated his intentions to redo Cutler's deal this season, and Cutler was testing the water with the new Sheriff in town.

Who knows.

But this notion that McD WANTED this deal, and then somehow it just didn't happen is hard for me to swallow. When I look at that deal, I see a deal that New England and Tampa Bay would be all over like white on rice, and if McD WANTED to do it, it would have been done.

The fact is that it didn't get done. And to me, that speaks volumes.

[Dean]

His words "we were late to the party" sounds now and sounded then like he made and attempt but the deal with KC was already too far along for Cassel to be aquired.

[MOtorboat]

Once again, it's either black or white.

I don't hate McDaniels, I have been very supportive about what he has done this trainging camp and in preperation for the season. It has nothing to do with "hate on McDaniels".

What you did is not proof that he picked up the phone and said no. In his own words, "That's what we have communicated ever since the deal with Cassel didn't happen," McDaniels said. "Other teams have called but we're not interested in getting draft picks for Jay."

Ever since the deal with Cassel didn't happen, other teams have called but we're not interested in getting draft picks for Jay.

That is not, we took a call and said no, that implies they were interested in trading Jay for a player, not picks. The deal for Cassel didn't happen.

Come on MO, there is no evidence he picked up the phone and said, "not interested."

Then there is no evidence for anything, and admonishing people and trying to be "above it all" becomes self-absorbant and self-omniscient. Also annoying.

[NameUsedBefore]

Being late to the party still means you wanted to come.

[MOtorboat]

Being late to the party still means you wanted to come.

Also means you were too late to really make a decision on whether you wanted to be there or not.

[NameUsedBefore]

Also means you were too late to really make a decision on whether you wanted to be there or not.

McDaniels wanted to be there. Had the offer been right he would have traded Cutler for Cassel. He has said nothing that differs from this and did not even when the divisions were occurring.

[MOtorboat]

McDaniels wanted to be there. Had the offer been right he would have traded Cutler for Cassel. He has said nothing that differs from this and did not even when the divisions were occurring.

But he didn't.

[Tned]

I'm behind you a lot of the way on this. I get very upset at the revisionist history as well.

After the trade I still had Cutler in my sig for MONTHS. I don't think I changed it until May or so. I never understood how the whole of Bronco fandom could so quickly do a 180 on him.

Marshall as well, although there is a little more reason to sour on Marshall I do believe. But still, for some to claim that he is a talentless hack is unbelievable.

What pissed me off in your statement earlier was you trying to say that McD had admitted himself to trying to trade Cutler without Bowlen's permission. That is just out-and-out false. And it's just as extreme and unwarranted of a point of view as those who believe that Cutler just threw a tantrum and forced his way out of Denver.

If you want to believe that McD tried to trade Cutler without Bowlen's permission, then that's fine, and I don't really have a problem with anyone believing that, although I believe otherwise.

The problem I have is you saying that McD said himself that this was the case. Because what McD has said himself is the opposite.

And it's that kind of thing that gets repeated a few times, and next thing you know it's gospel.

There is evidence that all McD did was have discussions about trading Cutler because that's what McD has said. Usually first-hand testimony is considered evidence.

Did he do more than just "answer the phone"? Undoubtedly he did.

But the overwhelming fact of the matter is that a trade didn't take place for Cassel. Based on the parameters of the trade discussions that we know there is no reason that the trade wouldn't have happened if the Broncos wanted it to happen. Cutler was the linch-pin of that trade. If McD had really WANTED to trade him in that deal, then it would have happened.

Can anyone really come up with a plausible scenario where McD is pushing Cutler in that deal and one of the other teams backs out? New England eventually traded Cassell for much less. Tampa Bay had a ton to gain by that deal.

The only team that would have conceivably put the brakes on that potential deal would have been the Broncos.

Should Cutler be upset that it was even discussed? Sure. It would go against human nature not to.

Did Cutler and his agent seize on this to make a stand on his contract renegotiation? Probably so. Especially considering that this was the time in the process in which Shanny usually resigned his big-name guys. It's very possible that Shanny had communicated his intentions to redo Cutler's deal this season, and Cutler was testing the water with the new Sheriff in town.

Who knows.

But this notion that McD WANTED this deal, and then somehow it just didn't happen is hard for me to swallow. When I look at that deal, I see a deal that New England and Tampa Bay would be all over like white on rice, and if McD WANTED to do it, it would have been done.

The fact is that it didn't get done. And to me, that speaks volumes.

First, if I came across that he was attempting to slide the trade threw without ever telling Bowlen, then I mispoke or didn't get my point across. What has been said, I can't be 100% if it was a direct McDaniels quote (but I recall it being an ESPN TV interview) that McDaniels said he never talked to Bowlen, because it didn't reach that point of the negotiations.

Reporters that are typically pretty reliable, like Scheffter and Peter King, said that it went beyond just picking up the phone, that McDaniels was very interested, but the Broncos entered late in their attempt to broker a three way deal (I will try and find the McDaniels interview the Kind articles -- by the way, the local press is pissed about McDaniels talking to King rather than local press).

Putting this in context, the point I was responding to was someone (can't remember who now) trying to make the case that McDaniels couldn't be held responsible for the Cutler trade,because he had nothing to do with it, it was 100% Bowlen's idea. While the final decision to trade him might have been Bowlens, I don't think too many people view it as McDaniels did nothing and Bowlen went and traded Cutler.

As to putting on the Brakes, we will probably never know. When you are trying to work a three way trade, where the Broncos are adequately compensated, a third party gets Cutler and NE gets something, it can be complicated. Unlike baseball, you don't see many trades of this type, which is why the Cutler trade and the Portis/Bailey trades made such huge headlines. In the NFL, big time players in their prime are rarely traded.

[NameUsedBefore]

But he didn't.

Because he was, I quote, "late to the party". Your argument wasn't that he didn't trade Cutler, but that somehow because he didn't that he did not want to. That's bullshit and you know it. At no point did McDaniels renege on what went down and the most likely reason for that, even in the face of potentially losing the QB, is because he did in fact have his hand in the cookie jar.

[Tned]

Then there is no evidence for anything, and admonishing people and trying to be "above it all" becomes self-absorbant and self-omniscient. Also annoying.

Mo, how many times have you posted, "he picked up the phone and said no"

"In other news, Jacksonville called Indy and tried to trade for Manning, and they said no"

"in other news, Miami called New England and tried to trade for Brady, and New England said no"

Quite a few, if I remember correctly.

You keep asserting that that was all that happened, when you have no basis for the assertion.

[MOtorboat]

Because he was, I quote, "late to the party". Your argument wasn't that he didn't trade Cutler, but that somehow because he didn't that he did not want to. That's bullshit and you know it. At no point did McDaniels renege on what went down and the most likely reason for that, even in the face of potentially losing the QB, is because he did in fact have his hand in the cookie jar.

Being late to the party also can mean he didn't really have time to contemplate it, therefore he just said no. It can also mean that. So don't tell me my argument is bullshit, because it isn't.

[MOtorboat]

Mo, how many times have you posted, "he picked up the phone and said no"

"In other news, Jacksonville called Indy and tried to trade for Manning, and they said no"

"in other news, Miami called New England and tried to trade for Brady, and New England said no"

Quite a few, if I remember correctly.

You keep asserting that that was all that happened, when you have no basis for the assertion.

Did Denver say no to the trade?

[Tned]

Also means you were too late to really make a decision on whether you wanted to be there or not.

In his own words:

"That's what we have communicated ever since the deal with Cassel didn't happen," McDaniels said. "Other teams have called but we're not interested in getting draft picks for Jay."

[Tned]

Did Denver say no to the trade?

We have no idea, it has never been stated one way or the other. All we know is that McDaniels said he discussed a trade and it didn't happen.

[MOtorboat]

We have no idea, it has never been stated one way or the other. All we know is that McDaniels said he discussed a trade and it didn't happen.

Did Denver actually do the trade?

It's a simple question.

[NameUsedBefore]

Being late to the party also can mean he didn't really have time to contemplate it, therefore he just said no. It can also mean that. So don't tell me my argument is bullshit, because it isn't.

He didn't "say no". The deal went through before Denver could really get involved.

All we have to go on, then, is what happened after and what happened after is no statement whatsoever that McDaniels would not have traded Cutler. Instead he announced the opposite which is that everyone is game. That should tell you everything you need to know about how far McDaniels would have gone with the deal had he gotten Denver seriously involved.

[MOtorboat]

He didn't "say no". The deal went through before Denver could really get involved.

Oh really? So you're assumption is right, and mine is wrong? Really?

[NameUsedBefore]

Oh really? So you're assumption is right, and mine is wrong? Really?

Dude. "Late to the party."

[Tned]

Did Denver actually do the trade?

It's a simple question.

You just changed the question. Five minutes ago, was did Denver say no, as you have asserted for the last five months. We have no idea.

Did denver complete a deal for Cassel, obviously not, he is in KC. That does NOT mean Denver picked up the phone and said no. Tampa could have said no, NE, or any other team involved could have said no.

[MOtorboat]

Dude. "Late to the party."

Yeah, I've already shown you how that can mean he said no, so nice try.

[MOtorboat]

You just changed the question. Five minutes ago, was did Denver say no, as you have asserted for the last five months. We have no idea.

Did denver complete a deal for Cassel, obviously not, he is in KC. That does NOT mean Denver picked up the phone and said no. Tampa could have said no, NE, or any other team involved could have said no.

So we have no idea if Denver did the trade?

[T.K.O.]

we do all remember that with the playoffs on the line this team everyone thinks was sooooooo great,blew 3 games in a row right?
this team that embarrassed me the final week of the season by showing the world that they were "no match" for the 7-8 chargers.
i dont care what anybody said we were far from a sb contender and wholesale changes were needed obviously pat bowlen agreed when he fired shanahan and not only allowed but gave his blessing to giving cutler his wish by trading him.

no where has mcD ever said that orton was his 1st choice at qb....he just took the only deal on the table that gave him a qb that he felt was smart enough to run his system .
josh did not destroy some great team.
he was charged with giving new life to a franchise with 1....count em' ONE playoff win in a decade.
i will at least give him a couple years to prove he can do it.
if he does'nt get us there then really how much did we as bronco fans lose?
at least it shows that bowlen and the fo was not satisfied fielding what was becoming a perenial "almost good enough" team !:salute:

[MOtorboat]

we do all remember that with the playoffs on the line this team everyone thinks was sooooooo great,blew 3 games in a row right?

No, many don't remember that at all.

[Tned]

So we have no idea if Denver did the trade?

Which part of "obviously not" wasn't clear? :confused:

[NameUsedBefore]

Yeah, I've already shown you how that can mean he said no, so nice try.

Saying you were "late to the party" doesn't mean you said no. We know the deal went down before Denver got involved, hence "late to the party". I don't see how at all that means Denver said no; it means exactly what it says.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

http://www.yardbarker.com/author/article_external/528828

If you weren’t a Jay Cutler fan before, you’re really going to like him now.

Remember how upset Cutler was after his name came up in trade talks over the weekend? Well according to SI.com’s Peter King, Cutler had already asked the Broncos to trade him, long before the events of this weekend took place.

Via Rotoworld.com:

According to SI’s Peter King, Jay Cutler had asked the Broncos to trade him after the team lost offensive coordinator Jim Bates to USC after the season.

Cutler wasn’t happy about losing Bates or head coach Mike Shanahan, and he’s not handling the recent trade talks well at all. It doesn’t look like the Broncos are going to trade Cutler at this point, so, as King suggested, “maybe both sides need to get into marriage counseling.”

You’re kidding me right? Cutler had already asked to be traded after Shanahan and Bates were fired, yet said he was shocked when his name came up in trade talks over the weekend? I guess he still could have been surprised by all the news, but for him to say how upset he was about the whole thing makes him look two-faced with this latest information coming to the table.

Any way you slice it, the Josh McDaniels era in Denver has not started off well. Cutler isn’t expected to be dealt any time this offseason, so that means the two parities will have to come together and bury the hatchet before the start of next season. These things tend to work themselves out and the situation will probably be a dead one by the time Week 1 hits, but again, this isn’t a good start for McDaniels.

[MOtorboat]

Let's play the logic game.

New England says no to the trade: Unloading a backup quarterback for two first round picks. Well, clearly that didn't happen, because they unloaded the backup for a second-round pick AND included a linebacker in the deal. So, the "no" doesn't exist there.

Tampa Bay says no to the trade: Desperately in need of a quarterback, Tampa says no to that trade, which sees them giving up two first-round picks to the Patriots for Jay Cutler, one of the great franchise-quarterbacks in league, only to see them sign journeyman Byron Leftwich and draft a "project" in Josh Freeman, with, shocking, their first-round pick.

Denver says no to the trade: They get Matt Cassell for Jay Cutler and no other compensation.

Anyone want to tell me which one is more likely, since we're all assuming here?

[T.K.O.]

So we have no idea if Denver did the trade?

we do know its less than 6 days til the broncos start the 09' campaign
they are 0-0 and last time i checked so are the other 31 teams in the league.
so you and i can look forward to hoisting a cold one and watching the broncos show the world they are'nt gonna roll over and quit ,just because some moptop manchild gave up on the team !
i still say we will be alot better than many so called experts think....and i for one will believe we are going to win until the scoreboard says otherwise at the end of the game !!!!!!!!!!!:beer:

oh and knowshon will make alot of people feel better about the trade long about week 6;)

[T.K.O.]

i wonder if clayton had shanahan on his "hot seat" list last year ?
maybe he's not so smart after all;)

[Tned]

Let's play the logic game.

New England says no to the trade: Unloading a backup quarterback for two first round picks. Well, clearly that didn't happen, because they unloaded the backup for a second-round pick AND included a linebacker in the deal. So, the "no" doesn't exist there.

Tampa Bay says no to the trade: Desperately in need of a quarterback, Tampa says no to that trade, which sees them giving up two first-round picks to the Patriots for Jay Cutler, one of the great franchise-quarterbacks in league, only to see them sign journeyman Byron Leftwich and draft a "project" in Josh Freeman, with, shocking, their first-round pick.

Denver says no to the trade: They get Matt Cassell for Jay Cutler and no other compensation.

Anyone want to tell me which one is more likely, since we're all assuming here?

With that ludicrous scenario, probably Denver, but you just pulled ridiculous details out of thin air. Denver gets Cassell and no other compensation?

Obviously, if a trade was going to take place, Tampa (or someone) would have had to give up something along the lines of two first, to Denver, Denver would have given something (a first or second presumably) to NE, so that in the end, Denver would have gotten at minimum Cassel and a 1st (if not two) and NE gotten equal or better compensation to what they got from KC.

You simply made up a scenario with no basis in reality, to try and prove what you spammed the message board with for weeks, "Denver answered the phone and said no." If it was that simple, why didn't McDaniels say that?

[NightTrainLayne]

Let's play the logic game.

New England says no to the trade: Unloading a backup quarterback for two first round picks. Well, clearly that didn't happen, because they unloaded the backup for a second-round pick AND included a linebacker in the deal. So, the "no" doesn't exist there.

Tampa Bay says no to the trade: Desperately in need of a quarterback, Tampa says no to that trade, which sees them giving up two first-round picks to the Patriots for Jay Cutler, one of the great franchise-quarterbacks in league, only to see them sign journeyman Byron Leftwich and draft a "project" in Josh Freeman, with, shocking, their first-round pick.

Denver says no to the trade: They get Matt Cassell for Jay Cutler and no other compensation.

Anyone want to tell me which one is more likely, since we're all assuming here?

This is it.

Now, this forces the folks that want to say that McD just "picked up the phone" to admit that he actually was involved in trade talks.

However, it also forces the other side to admit, that in reality the Broncos weren't receiving enough value for Cutler and didn't pull the trigger on the trade.

Cutler got upset.

McD and the Broncos went into spin control.

And now Kyle Orton is our QB.

In the end though, this is an offer that as a GM you have to at least listen to and discuss to some extent.

As McD has said, it never got far enough or serious enough to even discuss with Bowlen, so that tells me it didn't get too far, but it did go farther than just "picking up the phone.

Edit: As Tned has pointed out, Denver likely would have had more compensation in that three-way deal than just Cutler, but the fact is that whatever the proposal was, that it didn't go through, and the most logical explanation for why is that the Broncos weren't getting enough value for Cutler.

[MOtorboat]

With that ludicrous scenario, probably Denver, but you just pulled ridiculous details out of thin air. Denver gets Cassell and no other compensation?

Obviously, if a trade was going to take place, Tampa (or someone) would have had to give up something along the lines of two first, to Denver, Denver would have given something (a first or second presumably) to NE, so that in the end, Denver would have gotten at minimum Cassel and a 1st (if not two) and NE gotten equal or better compensation to what they got from KC.

You simply made up a scenario with no basis in reality, to try and prove what you spammed the message board with for weeks, "Denver answered the phone and said no." If it was that simple, why didn't McDaniels say that?

the reported trade was:

Denver gets: Matt Casell (and maybe a few random draft picks from either the Patriots or Buccaneers)

Tampa gets: Jay Cutler

New England gets: Two first round draft picks.

That was the reported trade, so no, I didn't pull it out of no where.

And why didn't McDaniels say that? He did. It's not my fault you (and Cutler) fail to remember that.

[Poet]

Freaking HOF journalist. Why do they get paid?..............

Its understandable, any first time head coach is going to be looked at that way untill he proves he can head a winning team. Yes we have to wait and see what happens but I have not heard one person outside of people on these boards say the Broncos had a good off season so heat will be on.

John Clayton is the man.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

Let's look at it this way - if Peter King is correct, and Cutler did ask to be traded after Shanahan and Bates were fired - what would anyone do?

Option 1 - tell Cutler where to stick it, and have a quarterback upset, possibly one who does not report, and there you are - sitting with a totally new offensive scheme, and the quarterback is not there to learn it -

OR

Option 2 - you get on the phone and see what you can do to replace your disgruntled quarterback.

[Lonestar]

I'm behind you a lot of the way on this. I get very upset at the revisionist history as well.

After the trade I still had Cutler in my sig for MONTHS. I don't think I changed it until May or so. I never understood how the whole of Bronco fandom could so quickly do a 180 on him.

Marshall as well, although there is a little more reason to sour on Marshall I do believe. But still, for some to claim that he is a talentless hack is unbelievable.

What pissed me off in your statement earlier was you trying to say that McD had admitted himself to trying to trade Cutler without Bowlen's permission. That is just out-and-out false. And it's just as extreme and unwarranted of a point of view as those who believe that Cutler just threw a tantrum and forced his way out of Denver.

If you want to believe that McD tried to trade Cutler without Bowlen's permission, then that's fine, and I don't really have a problem with anyone believing that, although I believe otherwise.

The problem I have is you saying that McD said himself that this was the case. Because what McD has said himself is the opposite.

And it's that kind of thing that gets repeated a few times, and next thing you know it's gospel.

There is evidence that all McD did was have discussions about trading Cutler because that's what McD has said. Usually first-hand testimony is considered evidence.

Did he do more than just "answer the phone"? Undoubtedly he did.

But the overwhelming fact of the matter is that a trade didn't take place for Cassel. Based on the parameters of the trade discussions that we know there is no reason that the trade wouldn't have happened if the Broncos wanted it to happen. Cutler was the linch-pin of that trade. If McD had really WANTED to trade him in that deal, then it would have happened.

Can anyone really come up with a plausible scenario where McD is pushing Cutler in that deal and one of the other teams backs out? New England eventually traded Cassell for much less. Tampa Bay had a ton to gain by that deal.

The only team that would have conceivably put the brakes on that potential deal would have been the Broncos.

Should Cutler be upset that it was even discussed? Sure. It would go against human nature not to.

Did Cutler and his agent seize on this to make a stand on his contract renegotiation? Probably so. Especially considering that this was the time in the process in which Shanny usually resigned his big-name guys. It's very possible that Shanny had communicated his intentions to redo Cutler's deal this season, and Cutler was testing the water with the new Sheriff in town.

Who knows.

But this notion that McD WANTED this deal, and then somehow it just didn't happen is hard for me to swallow. When I look at that deal, I see a deal that New England and Tampa Bay would be all over like white on rice, and if McD WANTED to do it, it would have been done.

The fact is that it didn't get done. And to me, that speaks volumes.

a couple of things here.. and not all of my post is rebuttal to yours.. as I agree with much of it..

most people soured on jay when he whined his way out of DEN after refusing the accept or return calls from an owner that has been one of the top 3-4 owners in the NFL IMHO top two with Craft being right next to him as thee best..

as for revisionist historians.. I know of NO one that has called marshall a talentless hack as you stated above.. if they have then they are wrong..


many have wanted him gone for OBVIOUS reasons,BUT not once do I remember anyone saying he is not talented....

Did jay and him have a god thing going absolutely was in always in the best interest of the team well IMHO it was not..


If Josh would have wanted to trade jay up front he would have and I doubt many/anyone would have complained if he got Cassell and two first rounders like was being bantered about..

the one fact we Know is Josh always stated that Jay was is QB.. never once said he was on his way out the door.. and I doubt anyone could have stopped a Pissed off Pat Bowlen from making that statement after jay refused to talk with him..

Now how it got to that point is strictly he said she said..

But he did not trade him Pat made that decision..

[NameUsedBefore]

Denver didn't say no because they weren't given that opportunity. They were "late to the party". I don't know how else that can be interpreted, really.

After that, McDaniels basically said Cutler is tradeable. Okay then, so let's play a real assumption game saying that Denver had gotten to the tables. What does that statement mean? It means given the right offer we would have ended up with Cassel and Cutler gone. I repeat: With the right offer Cutler would be on another team and Cassel would be here with the correct appropriations inbetween.

McDaniels didn't say no, he wasn't given the opportunity to say such a thing. Everything else is making assumptions, of course, but you can't start from any other position than McDaniels didn't enter the talks in time. That Cutler was eventually traded says a lot now because of an obvious reason.

Ostensibly, that reason being that of Marshall who has skipped camps, made a fool himself while in practice, been a drag on the team for months and had been asking for a trade for some time now... and has not been traded.

[MOtorboat]

Denver didn't say no because they weren't given that opportunity. They were "late to the party". I don't know how else that can be interpreted, really.

Easily. I showed you how.

You failed to comprehend it. Not my problem. I didn't read the rest of your post. Sorry.

[NameUsedBefore]

Easily. I showed you how.

You failed to comprehend it. Not my problem. I didn't read the rest of your post. Sorry.

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy the argument that "late to the party" can also mean "I came to the party but didn't like it" and, for reasons that have things to do with definitions and phraseology, will never, ever buy such an argument.

[T.K.O.]

Let's look at it this way - if Peter King is correct, and Cutler did ask to be traded after Shanahan and Bates were fired - what would anyone do?

Option 1 - tell Cutler where to stick it, and have a quarterback upset, possibly one who does not report, and there you are - sitting with a totally new offensive scheme, and the quarterback is not there to learn it -

OR

Option 2 - you get on the phone and see what you can do to replace your disgruntled quarterback.

presicely ! and there is no IF as to wether or not jay requested a trade....and if i recall he did skip ota's meaning he was not interested in getting "his" team ready for the season with a whole new scheme and coaching....not to mention ,as the "leader" of the team he was setting a very bad example for guys like....oh say....brandon marshall;)

[MOtorboat]

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy the argument that "late to the party" can also mean "I came to the party but didn't like it" and, for reasons that have things to do with definitions and phraseology, will never, ever buy such an argument.

Alrighty then...

The logic of the trade aside, you don't agree with Denver saying no. I understand.

The trade offer is what it is.

The logic says Denver said no, because they didn't really have time to consider the offer and New England was ready to move with the trade to Kansas City, therefore Denver said no. It's actually quite simple how that could have happened. In fact, its most likely that it did.

[Tned]

the reported trade was:

Denver gets: Matt Casell (and maybe a few random draft picks from either the Patriots or Buccaneers)

Tampa gets: Jay Cutler

New England gets: Two first round draft picks.

That was the reported trade, so no, I didn't pull it out of no where.

And why didn't McDaniels say that? He did. It's not my fault you (and Cutler) fail to remember that.

To quote you, "Link"

[Lonestar]

As I see it here we have a divided camp

those that wish mike was still here with a new DC.. everything would be hunky dory..

or

those that knew that there were issues with the team and believe it when Pat decided to make a change, he was correct and what change it was..


everyone knows what camp I'm in..with that I bid adieu..

[NightTrainLayne]

Denver didn't say no because they weren't given that opportunity. They were "late to the party". I don't know how else that can be interpreted, really.

After that, McDaniels basically said Cutler is tradeable. Okay then, so let's play a real assumption game saying that Denver had gotten to the tables. What does that statement mean? It means given the right offer we would have ended up with Cassel and Cutler gone. I repeat: With the right offer Cutler would be on another team and Cassel would be here with the correct appropriations inbetween.

McDaniels didn't say no, he wasn't given the opportunity to say such a thing. Everything else is making assumptions, of course, but you can't start from any other position than McDaniels didn't enter the talks in time. That Cutler was eventually traded says a lot now because of an obvious reason.

Ostensibly, that reason being that of Marshall who has skipped camps, made a fool himself while in practice, been a drag on the team for months and had been asking for a trade for some time now... and has not been traded.

If that's the case, then you are saying that the other two teams involved, (New England and Tampa Bay) put together something and then somehow the Broncos got involved, but it was "too late".

This is completely different from the Broncos actively shopping Cutler and then the deal not happening for whatever reason.

As Tned has stated, three-way deals like this are quite rare in the NFL. If the Broncos were the team pushing such a deal, then how in the world are they they one's who are "late" to the party. The more likely explanation is that the Broncos were approached by one or both other parties (N.E. and T.B) at a late point in their discussions and nothing could be put together.

That is a lot different than arguing that the Broncos were actively shopping Cutler as some have tried to argue.

But as you state, if the compensation had been agreeable to McD, then Cassel would be a Bronco and Cutler would be someplace else. I totally agree with that. Of course, Cassel is not a Bronco, so obviously, McD didn't want to let him go for Cassel and whatever other compensation was offered. Again, pointing out that if McD really WANTED to move Cutler, he could have done so.

[MOtorboat]

To quote you, "Link"

You're seriously going to contend that?

That was the trade proposal. :noidea:

[MOtorboat]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=3946294&sportCat=nfl&campaign=rsssrch&source=new+england+patriots


The three-way trade between the Broncos, New England Patriots and Tampa Bay Buccaneers didn't reach critical mass, but names (Cutler to the Bucs, Matt Cassel to the Broncos) and numbers (first- and fourth-round draft picks to the Patriots) were discussed.

Shit...that wasn't even two first-rounders...

[Thnikkaman]

Thnikkaman Reports that John Clayton is a sports journalist on the Hot Seat.

John Clayton known for being a Senior Football analyst for the 4-Letter. Constantly either reporting things that go along with the popular opinion, or re-reporting on ideas that other people have had, John Clayton is known as a world class hack. He needs to get his act together by the end of the 09 football season or he risks loosing all of his credibility.

[Tned]

Well, this is going round in circles. I will stick with my belief that McDaniels is 'more' on the hot seat now, than if the whole Cassel fiasco hadn't gone down and Cutler was still a Bronco.

The fact that the national media is saying things like "McDaniels has turned Denver into an expansion team" is not the kind of press that Bowlen is going to like. The fact that the two most talented players on the team got into very public feuds with McDaniels, whoever is at fault, is probably not making Pat Bowlen happy.

The fact he didn't draft much defense, moved up in the draft for muliple picks and one of the few defenders drafted in the 2nd round, cost them next year's first, likely didn't make Pat Bowlen happy (as he said as much in an interview after the draft -- surprised that they drafted so few defenders -- McDaniels has made rookie mistakes).

McDaniels has put his mark on this team with indellible ink and will need to win sooner rather than later.

If the Broncos have a top 5 or so pick next year and it goes to Seattle, and we don't see Smith looking like one of the best CB's in the league, if Orton doesn't look like a viable starting QB, there will be a lot of heat on McDaniels and Pat Bowlen.

So, is he at risk of being fired if he doesn't make the playoff this year? No. Has he probably given himself a much shorter honeymoon with the Cutler/Marshall fiascos, the draft moves? I think so.

[Tned]

As I see it here we have a divided camp

those that wish mike was still here with a new DC.. everything would be hunky dory..

or

those that knew that there were issues with the team and believe it when Pat decided to make a change, he was correct and what change it was..


everyone knows what camp I'm in..with that I bid adieu..

Or, written another way...

Those that disagree with Jr and are wrong.

or

Those that agree with Jr and are right.

Come on. There are plenty of people that think McDaniels made some mistakes, but also have done plenty right. There are plenty of people that think Marshall has acted immature, but we don't turn every thread into an opportunity to bash him and call him a moron.

I'm guessing I am in the same place as Pat Bowlen, I think McDaniels can be very good for this team, but I also think he has made rookie mistakes.

[Tned]

If that's the case, then you are saying that the other two teams involved, (New England and Tampa Bay) put together something and then somehow the Broncos got involved, but it was "too late".

This is completely different from the Broncos actively shopping Cutler and then the deal not happening for whatever reason.

As Tned has stated, three-way deals like this are quite rare in the NFL. If the Broncos were the team pushing such a deal, then how in the world are they they one's who are "late" to the party. The more likely explanation is that the Broncos were approached by one or both other parties (N.E. and T.B) at a late point in their discussions and nothing could be put together.

That is a lot different than arguing that the Broncos were actively shopping Cutler as some have tried to argue.

But as you state, if the compensation had been agreeable to McD, then Cassel would be a Bronco and Cutler would be someplace else. I totally agree with that. Of course, Cassel is not a Bronco, so obviously, McD didn't want to let him go for Cassel and whatever other compensation was offered. Again, pointing out that if McD really WANTED to move Cutler, he could have done so.

Now, like everying being discussed, this is total speculation, but here is my WAG.

Denver, Tampa or one of the other teams interested in Cutler, heard about the trade between NE and KC. They then tried to quickly broker a three way (whether initiated by Denver, Tampa or someone else, who knows) deal sending Cutler to Tampa, Detroit or another team, Cassel + picks to Denver and pick(s) to NE.

Trades of that type are very rare in the NFL, because of salary caps, prorated bonuses, and many other impediments, so it isn't like NFL coaches/GMs are used to blockbuster, three way trades.

Somehow, it fell through, or Denver and the third party didn't put a deal in place before NE and KC finalized their deal. Or, it is even possible that KC/NE had already finalized their deal when Denver and Tampa tried to package something, and then found out NE had already agreed to the deal with KC.

We don't really know.

[Lonestar]

Or, written another way...

Those that disagree with Jr and are wrong.

or

Those that agree with Jr and are right.

Come on. There are plenty of people that think McDaniels made some mistakes, but also have done plenty right. There are plenty of people that think Marshall has acted immature, but we don't turn every thread into an opportunity to bash him and call him a moron.

I'm guessing I am in the same place as Pat Bowlen, I think McDaniels can be very good for this team, but I also think he has made rookie mistakes.


or written the way I stated it.. with no more interpretation needed..


Originally Posted by Jrwiz
As I see it here we have a divided camp

those that wish mike was still here with a new DC.. everything would be hunky dory..

or

those that knew that there were issues with the team and believe it when Pat decided to make a change, he was correct and what change it was..


everyone knows what camp I'm in..with that I bid adieu..

[Tned]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=3946294&sportCat=nfl&campaign=rsssrch&source=new+england+patriots



Shit...that wasn't even two first-rounders...

Obviosly not. Nobody was going to give two first rounders for Cassel.

[Tned]

or written the way I stated it.. with no more interpretation needed..



My point was that isn't the two camps that people are divided in, and it isn't even two 'simple' camps.

[Lonestar]

Now, like everying being discussed, this is total speculation, but here is my WAG.

Denver, Tampa or one of the other teams interested in Cutler, heard about the trade between NE and KC. They then tried to quickly broker a three way (whether initiated by Denver, Tampa or someone else, who knows) deal sending Cutler to Tampa, Detroit or another team, Cassel + picks to Denver and pick(s) to NE.

Trades of that type are very rare in the NFL, because of salary caps, prorated bonuses, and many other impediments, so it isn't like NFL coaches/GMs are used to blockbuster, three way trades.

Somehow, it fell through, or Denver and the third party didn't put a deal in place before NE and KC finalized their deal. Or, it is even possible that KC/NE had already finalized their deal when Denver and Tampa tried to package something, and then found out NE had already agreed to the deal with KC.

We don't really know.

I will beleive, the last sentence ..

[T.K.O.]

Well, this is going round in circles. I will stick with my belief that McDaniels is 'more' on the hot seat now, than if the whole Cassel fiasco hadn't gone down and Cutler was still a Bronco.

The fact that the national media is saying things like "McDaniels has turned Denver into an expansion team" is not the kind of press that Bowlen is going to like. The fact that the two most talented players on the team got into very public feuds with McDaniels, whoever is at fault, is probably not making Pat Bowlen happy.

The fact he didn't draft much defense, moved up in the draft for muliple picks and one of the few defenders drafted in the 2nd round, cost them next year's first, likely didn't make Pat Bowlen happy (as he said as much in an interview after the draft -- surprised that they drafted so few defenders -- McDaniels has made rookie mistakes).

McDaniels has put his mark on this team with indellible ink and will need to win sooner rather than later.

If the Broncos have a top 5 or so pick next year and it goes to Seattle, and we don't see Smith looking like one of the best CB's in the league, if Orton doesn't look like a viable starting QB, there will be a lot of heat on McDaniels and Pat Bowlen.

So, is he at risk of being fired if he doesn't make the playoff this year? No. Has he probably given himself a much shorter honeymoon with the Cutler/Marshall fiascos, the draft moves? I think so.

so bowlen is going to put himself in "the hot seat"?
besides im pretty sure bowlen (or any other team) is'nt really looking forward to that top 5 pick next year....its gonna be crazier than ever unless theres a new cba.
look at crabtree ,it looks like he will be in next years draft and you can bet nobody will pick him in the top 10...what are these kids thinking?
when someone offers you 40 million for playing a game ......:confused:
i'm sure mr B himself had something to do with giving up chicago's #1 next year.
you got to remember we had 2 this year and few teams can pay for 4 1sts (especially high 1sts) in 2 years.
we need some scratch to give brandon his ext. and pay orton big bucks after his probowl season this year.....right?:salute:

[MOtorboat]

I will beleive, the last sentence ..

Tned tags every post with that, so he isn't wrong. It's quite genious, actually.

Logic aside...

[TXBRONC]

Being late to the party also can mean he didn't really have time to contemplate it, therefore he just said no. It can also mean that. So don't tell me my argument is bullshit, because it isn't.

So what make your assertions correct? You don't have anything concrete to support that. You would have had been in the room when this all took place.

[MOtorboat]

So what make your assertions correct? You don't have anything concrete to support that. You would have had been in the room when this all took place.

So your assumption is better than mine.

Noted.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

Would it not be better if we ALL admit that none of us know really what actually went on, and furthermore, there is NOTHING that any of us can do about it anyway?

[MOtorboat]

Would it not be better if we ALL admit that none of us know really what actually went on, and furthermore, there is NOTHING that any of us can do about it anyway?

lol

[Lonestar]

Would it not be better if we ALL admit that none of us know really what actually went on, and furthermore, there is NOTHING that any of us can do about it anyway?

in the wild wild west they used a peacemaker..:salute: to settle arguments..:tsk:

[T.K.O.]

Would it not be better if we ALL admit that none of us know really what actually went on, and furthermore, there is NOTHING that any of us can do about it anyway?

besides jay is waaaaaay too pretty to be a bronco now !;)
have a great night all im outta here.....5 days to go ! whooo hooo:elefant:

[Dean]

besides jay is waaaaaay too pretty to be a bronco now !;)
have a great night all im outta here.....5 days to go ! whooo hooo:elefant:

Are you watching the game on Saturday or are you talking about something else?

[TXBRONC]

So your assumption is better than mine.

Noted.

I said no such thing.

What makes your assertions correct? There is no more evidence to support your than any other position.

[Tned]

Tned tags every post with that, so he isn't wrong. It's quite genious, actually.

Logic aside...

Ok, it isn't only snied, but an outright lie.

I'm sorry I am not all knowing, and have the ability to read minds and KNOW what people thought and said behind closed doors, as you claim to be able to do.

[Tned]

Would it not be better if we ALL admit that none of us know really what actually went on, and furthermore, there is NOTHING that any of us can do about it anyway?

Yep, it would.

[TXBRONC]

Would it not be better if we ALL admit that none of us know really what actually went on, and furthermore, there is NOTHING that any of us can do about it anyway?

It would be but that takes more effort than some are willing to give.

[MOtorboat]

Ok, it isn't only snied, but an outright lie.

I'm sorry I am not all knowing, and have the ability to read minds and KNOW what people thought and said behind closed doors, as you claim to be able to do.

I apologize for using my brain and logically coming up with a solution based on what people involved have told us.

Again, I apologize.

Warning: This is all useless because we don't know what was said.

[sneakers]

Wade Phillips got 2 years and didnt trade Elway, or Sharpe.

Yes, but we got Anthony Miller, Michael Prichartt, Robert Delpino, and Rod Bernstein. :eek:

[Simple Jaded]

McDaniels admitted trying to trade for Cassell, apparenly even told Cutler that he wasn't sorry for that.

That alone is enough to conclude that none of this happens if not for McDaniels incompetence and stupidity.......

[MOtorboat]

McDaniels admitted trying to trade for Cassell, apparenly even told Cutler that he wasn't sorry for that.

That alone is enough to conclude that none of this happens if not for McDaniels incompetence and stupidity.......

lol

[Tned]

In other news. Anyone watch those Football Insiders on ESPN? Clayton stuck with his 3-13 for the Broncos, and 4 wins for KC and Oakland. Schefter, Mortenson and the third guy (drawing a blank) were all saying they thought the Broncos would be better than many though, not make the playoffs good, but probably close to .500.

[NightTrainLayne]

In other news. Anyone watch those Football Insiders on ESPN? Clayton stuck with his 3-13 for the Broncos, and 4 wins for KC and Oakland. Schefter, Mortenson and the third guy (drawing a blank) were all saying they thought the Broncos would be better than many though, not make the playoffs good, but probably close to .500.

Glad to hear it. I've been saying this since the draft.

Since then I've said that we are more likely to win 9 or more games than we are to win less than 5, with the greatest probability somewhere in between 5 and 9 wins. Basically I've just been saying that the 3-13 doom and gloom is a severe over-reaction.

We're going to be ok this season.

[Lonestar]

For the most part I do not worry about the record of the team but how well they are playing.

It makes no difference to me if they win a crappy division title if they get their asses kicked in the first playoff game.

We all know deep down in their hearts that would have happened last year.

Outside of the offense the past couple of years the rest of D and ST were almost rotten to the core.
It just showed last year. That being an unbalanced team could not sustain winning when it counted.

Does anyone ever think WHAT IF Houckili would have not blown that fumble dead.
Does anyone really think we would have won that game.

Let's just be competitive in each game this year learn the new systems. And build on each game and be happy we are on our way to a TEAM that we have not been the last few years.

Afterall it took a team to win those Lombardi's. Mike knew that once but seemed to forget it lately.

[Tned]

Glad to hear it. I've been saying this since the draft.

Since then I've said that we are more likely to win 9 or more games than we are to win less than 5, with the greatest probability somewhere in between 5 and 9 wins. Basically I've just been saying that the 3-13 doom and gloom is a severe over-reaction.

We're going to be ok this season.

In the preseason prediction I did, I came up with either 7-9 or 9-7, can't remember which. A lot of people told me I was crazy. It is a tough schedule, but at the time I was assuming Marshall would be on the field, and if Orton can play reasonable, we should put up some points, and the defense almost has to be better.

[claymore]

For the most part I do not worry about the record of the team but how well they are playing.

It makes no difference to me if they win a crappy division title if they get their asses kicked in the first playoff game.

We all know deep down in their hearts that would have happened last year.

Outside of the offense the past couple of years the rest of D and ST were almost rotten to the core.
It just showed last year. That being an unbalanced team could not sustain winning when it counted.

Does anyone ever think WHAT IF Houckili would have not blown that fumble dead.
Does anyone really think we would have won that game.

Let's just be competitive in each game this year learn the new systems. And build on each game and be happy we are on our way to a TEAM that we have not been the last few years.

Afterall it took a team to win those Lombardi's. Mike knew that once but seemed to forget it lately.

The only way to base a teams performance is by wins. Tell me how winning less than 8 games is a step in the right direction.

As for the Houckili botch up.... I havent thought about it since we got it. Teams have got lucky calls against us as well. It goes both ways.

[TXBRONC]

In the preseason prediction I did, I came up with either 7-9 or 9-7, can't remember which. A lot of people told me I was crazy. It is a tough schedule, but at the time I was assuming Marshall would be on the field, and if Orton can play reasonable, we should put up some points, and the defense almost has to be better.

I'm pretty sure you said 9-7.

[Kaylore]

I think I see Clayton's point though. I hope McDaniels succeeds because that means the Broncos will succeed, but he blew up a team that was fairly competitive last year (the last game notwithstanding). The question is going to be, "Does Bowlen agree with him that the team had to basically start over?" If he does, then McDaniels gets two or three years to turn it around. If not, I'm not sure how much patience he's going to have.

No he didn't. He blew up a team that was wretched. That lost to 4 win Jacksonville, 5 win Oakland and freaking 2 win KC. It was a team that was at the bottom of the league in defense and special teams and barely average offensively (in points, not worthless yards) that turned the ball over more than anyone else.

This team sucked last year. Why Bronco fans are still in denial with how bad it was is beyond me.

[Kaylore]

The only way to base a teams performance is by wins. Tell me how winning less than 8 games is a step in the right direction.


Easy. The schedule is harder this year. Last years' team would win four games with this schedule. If we improve at the end of the year and are not getting blown out to division opponents or getting embarrassed by 30 point margins on prime time TV, then I will consider it a huge step in the right direction.

[claymore]

Easy. The schedule is harder this year. Last years' team would win four games with this schedule. If we improve at the end of the year and are not getting blown out to division opponents or getting embarrassed by 30 point margins on prime time TV, then I will consider it a huge step in the right direction.

As far as the Strength of Scedule, you know that means less as the season goes on.

If our defense does suck, we can also say Orton should be 14-1 when we allow 21 points or less?

[claymore]

No he didn't. He blew up a team that was wretched. That lost to 4 win Jacksonville, 5 win Oakland and freaking 2 win KC. It was a team that was at the bottom of the league in defense and special teams and barely average offensively (in points, not worthless yards) that turned the ball over more than anyone else.

This team sucked last year. Why Bronco fans are still in denial with how bad it was is beyond me.

I agree it sucked. I think it is far worse this year. Thats why I am upset.

[Mike]

I agree it sucked. I think it is far worse this year. Thats why I am upset.

Just curious, Clay. What position do you think the Broncos got worse at this year...other than the obvious one.

[claymore]

Just curious, Clay. What position do you think the Broncos got worse at this year...other than the obvious one.

The obvious one is 75% of the problem, our best player, and the hardest to replace.

I think after that, our front office went to shit once the goodmans left.

I think our offensive coaching took a huge hit as well.

I dont know if this team is strong enough to survive a losing season. The players will only buy into the patriot west way if we win IMO.

All gains on defense will be lost IMO by the middle of the season if we cant win.

[Lonestar]

No he didn't. He blew up a team that was wretched. That lost to 4 win Jacksonville, 5 win Oakland and freaking 2 win KC. It was a team that was at the bottom of the league in defense and special teams and barely average offensively (in points, not worthless yards) that turned the ball over more than anyone else.

This team sucked last year. Why Bronco fans are still in denial with how bad it was is beyond me.


I do not get it either other than we were #2 between the 20's last year and had a decent FG kicker this team sucked.. for that matter had a HOF kicker for years IMHO the only thing that did not get mikes ass fired 4-5 years ago..

great between the 20's but could never go for or get the kill shot the team had very little if any killer instinct in it..

I think the team might have went south had Houckili given that game to us.. but we will never know it was (BIG) win at the time..


Easy. The schedule is harder this year. Last years' team would win four games with this schedule. If we improve at the end of the year and are not getting blown out to division opponents or getting embarrassed by 30 point margins on prime time TV, then I will consider it a huge step in the right direction.

I have been saying this since the schedule came out.. I do not understand why everyone thinks that W-L is the only way to judge a team..

IMHO the broncos of last year were almost rotten to the core.. other that O they sucked..

I guess we are only one of a couple that look realistically on good and bad..

[spikerman]

No he didn't. He blew up a team that was wretched. That lost to 4 win Jacksonville, 5 win Oakland and freaking 2 win KC. It was a team that was at the bottom of the league in defense and special teams and barely average offensively (in points, not worthless yards) that turned the ball over more than anyone else.

This team sucked last year. Why Bronco fans are still in denial with how bad it was is beyond me.The team was excruciatingly weak on the defense and not very good on special teams. It was, however, a .500 team which made it competitive by definition. I don't think you'll find any posts where I stated that I thought last years' team was especially good, but I felt better about that team than this team so far. Last year the only chance the Broncos had to win many games was to win a shootout just because the defense was so poor. With the offense Denver had with Cutler at QB they had the ability to compete in a shootout, this year they don't.

I have been upset by red zone problems in the past and stated what I believe was the problem. So far I haven't seen anything that makes me think the red zone offense will be markedly better and now the Broncos don't have a QB that can compete in a shootout. That's why I think the team took a step back. There's a difference between competitive and good. I really hope that I'm wrong and the Broncos are both competitive AND good, but at this point I'm not optimistic.

[Ravage!!!]

I guess we are only one of a couple that look realistically on good and bad..

Omg.. I think I just threw up in my mouth, just a lil........... yeah... yeah I did.

why is the W-L record the determining factor... Well.. THAT sure is IRONIC considering how many times I've been told that Orton's W-L record is better than Cutler's. :confused:

Also.. lets remember that pre-season rankings of teams, means squat. What would have appeared to be an easy or hard schedule based on last years teams/records has been proved over the years matter very little

[BigSarge87]

I'M SO DONE ARGUING ABOUT THIS CRAP! (or at least reading people argue about it)

WIN OR LOSE, I'm freakin stoked to watch the Broncos play some football!!

AHHHHHHHHH!!

[chris_rabz]

I'M SO DONE ARGUING ABOUT THIS CRAP! (or at least reading people argue about it)

WIN OR LOSE, I'm freakin stoked to watch the Broncos play some football!!

AHHHHHHHHH!!

Quote of the post so far. Being new to the forum I'm reading pretty much every topic from page 1 to its end, unless I get bored of the topic and skip to the last page. I got to page 5/10 on this one and eventually got sick of the Cutler debates. Now my opinion won't be that valued because in the UK we just don't get the same coverage unless we trawl the WWW for it. But the one thing that's stood out over this whole thread so far, and a lot of others, is that with Cutler, "about 95% of the story is what we do not know".

So how so many people can say in this thread that "Jay meant this" or "he met with him" I do not know. Unless you are an official of the Denver Broncos then it is speculation to me.

As far as the 'hotseat' debate goes the main thing, in fact no, the ONLY thing I've ever seen an NFL coach judged on ultimately is his W-L record. People can say 'he's building this', 'he's had this excuse' but at the end of it all, losing teams aren't usually happy with their coaches, winning teams are.

However I do accept that we have a tough schedule this year, and a lot has changed. An awful lot. So to expect playoffs is obviously quite far-fetched. A finish somewhere between 6-10 and 9-7 is far more likely, with San Diego taking the West almost by default with Joke and KC looking non-existent for another year.

But aslong as we look like the team is building - not on last season because everything is new and a tired old team is slowly being replaced - but as long as the team looks like it has its building blocks in place this year, with players who are buying into JMcD's ideas, then that will be enough for me in 2009.

If we keep those foundations, have a decent-to-good draft next year and keep behind the coach, then I think we could be building something strong and long-withstanding.

[Superchop 7]

Josh has made some serious "head scratcher" moves.

Thats why he is on the hotseat.