PDA

View Full Version : Simeon Rice Unloads on Shanahan, Broncos



Skinny
01-11-2008, 09:51 PM
Friday, 11 Jan 2008,

DENVER - To see former Denver Broncos defensive end Simeon Rice in the locker room is to think he’s reserved and is without much to say.

To actually talk to him is to learn quite different...especially when it comes to his abrupt departure from Denver.

Rice is about as candid as interviewees come, and my conversation with Rice didn’t disappoint. Rice didn’t fumble on his impressions about Broncos head coach Mike Shanahan or the defense he, in essence, paid to leave behind.

“I told them they can keep their money,” Rice said.

“I got enough money. It’s all about the love for the game for me.”

Rice, 33, reportedly gave up a portion of his $2.15 million signing in exchange for being released from the team.

“I’m not about to be affiliated with no bull**** like that. I told them they can keep their money. I signed off. I’m like ‘keep your money, that’s blood money.’ I’ve never come to the point in my career…of accepting some ****ing check I’m not working for,” said Rice.

Rice who had off-season shoulder surgery, agreed to terms with the Broncos on September 3, 2007, but right off the bat Rice says he felt like, “I was an out cast. I wasn’t part of that team.”

According to Rice, Broncos head coach Mike Shanahan initially made him feel great about his decision to come to Denver.

“He told me when he sat me down in there…I was going to be a starter. That’s the only reason why I came to Denver. This man sat me down, and told me this. I told [Shanahan] about my situation in St. Louis. [The Rams] wanted me to come in and be a third down pass rusher.”

Rice didn’t want that scenario in Denver. And Rice says he made Shanahan aware of this.

“I just need a team I’m going to be committed to, and I will take it to the next level. [Shanahan] was like ‘oh no, Sim that’s not what we want you to do. We just want you to come in get healthy and then we will work you in.’ They never did that,” Rice said.

Despite missing much of the pre-season preparation, Rice says he was initially prepared to hang in there.

“I came out there with no camp. I didn’t ***** about it. I was going to take mine like a man. I just laced it up.”

In six games with Denver, the Broncos started Rice once. His stat line says he had 8 total tackles, 5 solo, 3 assisted, and no sacks.

Over time, the Broncos reportedly became frustrated with Rice’s lack of production, and his increasing tendency to vocalize his feelings about the deteriorating situation with the club.

But when Rice looks back on the situation now he feels the Broncos never lived up to their word to allow him to prove the type of player he believes he is, despite his shoulder injury.

“He lied to me in my face [about the fact that he would be a consistent starter], and to be honest I couldn’t get past that. I know coaches lie to you in this league. I understand all that. But I play with so much integrity. I put my heart and soul in what I do.”

“I’m going to tell you I sat there and I listened to this man tell me something, sell me on this pipe dream. I believed what he said that things were going to change, and they never did. Matter of fact, they got worse.”

Rice recalled another conversation he had with Shanahan after his first game against the Buffalo Bills which was apparently a sign of more frustrations to come.

“I sat with Shanahan, and he is sitting there telling me looking through my defense at what I am doing in the first game, and he’s like ‘look at how you work for this team.’ I said ‘dude that is mediocre football.’ I told him that. I said ‘man that’s mediocre.’ He’s like, ‘Well, Simeon this helps the team out-batting that ball. I’m like that’s all you want me to do?” Rice said.

“I said, ‘man I will be patient, but I can’t tell you how long my patience is going to last.’”

Simeon’s patience certainly didn’t grow as he was relegated to scout team work. Rice admits, though, he even suggested the idea to Shanahan to maintain the field reps he’s accustomed to.

“I said ‘I’m going to go to scout team just to get my rhythm.’ Then he tells me ‘I’m not going to play you until you dominate scout team.’ Ain’t no f-ing thing as dominating scout team. Are you kidding me?” Rice said.

Apparently, the three time Pro-Bowler who helped lead the Tampa Buccaneers to a Super Bowl victory in 2002, and whose 121 sacks currently ranks him 2nd among active players, thought Shanahan’s suggestion about dominating scout team was below his reputation.

“I’m like ‘dude what do you think I am going to do, be a buffoon out there. This is ridiculous.’”

“It was a joke.”

“There were some days I wasn’t even practicing.”

When Rice was asked if the Broncos limited his play because they realized perhaps he wasn’t recovering from his shoulder surgery like they anticipated, Rice dismissed the notion immediately.

“They say ‘it’s your shoulder, it’s your shoulder.’”

“It’s my shoulder! Let me determine how I am. I was always a cat that would go 100%, but they never got the chance to see that.”

Rice says he was miffed by the fact the Broncos would start John Engelberger over him.

“You got me a bonafide Hall of Famer…a Pro Bowler…and you say I’m going to play my brand name in this league over whoever the hell they played.”

Rice made it clear he wasn’t speaking about Elvis Dumervil whose 12.5 sacks lead the Broncos this past season.

“Elvis is a good player. Not him. John Engelberger. Are you kidding me? Come on now. If you would have put me and Elvis out there and let it ride it would have been a hell of a year, defensively. But they didn’t allow that brilliance to be on the field at the same time.”

Rice is not surprised now that the Broncos are re-shuffling their defensive coaching line-up, starting with the “resignation” of assistant head coach/defense Jim Bates.

“That team don’t have a criteria of what a defense is,” opined Rice.

“Against the Colts they played four defensive ends on that d-line. They have no commitment to what they’re doing. How are you going to play Sam Adams one week, and not Adams, the next. I have been the best in this league. You’re going to put me in, then take me out. For what?”

In the end, Rice says he learned from the situation.

“It was a lesson to be learned. I’m not pissed at the organization. I am pissed that Shanahan lied to me. That kind of bothered me,” said Rice.

But Rice’s feelings are not all bitter towards the Broncos head coach.

“He did me a favor by allowing me to leave. I appreciate that. If you are on the nucleus of that team he does try and take care of the guys he knows, like Champ Bailey.”

“I wish he did know me like that. Then he would have loved me.”

Three days after being waived by the Broncos November 9th, the Indianapolis Colts picked him up. The move reunited Rice with his old coach Tony Dungy.

Rice played two games for the Colts, and did not start in either. Rice recorded 1 tackle and 1 sack for the Colts.

In late November Rice was released again.

I asked Rice why the situation didn’t work with the Colts either.

“Man, I was just there for a second. That’s not even enough time. I don’t know what to say about that.”

Simeon Rice says he hopes to play in the NFL again.

In the meantime, he says he is producing a pilot for a television show entitled “Fallen” in the cities of Phoenix and Chicago.

“It is about a player’s fall from grace…me.” “It will be shot 24/7,” explained Rice. Rice is hoping the pilot gets picked up by Spike T.V. or HBO, just to name a few.

Hopefully the story line and his real life career end on a triumphant note.

http://www.myfoxcolorado.com/myfox/pages/Sports/Detail?contentId=5463455&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=6.2.1

slim
01-11-2008, 09:56 PM
Rice has always been a blow-hard....he is a "me guy". I remember when he played for the AZ Cardinals and he threw Pat Tillman under the bus. He is a classless, selfish SOB.

TXBRONC
01-11-2008, 10:01 PM
I don't what he's crying about they did try and work him in. I think he even got a chance to start at least one game but looked like crap.

Watchthemiddle
01-11-2008, 10:12 PM
The same thing would have happened had he gone to St. Louis. It happened in Indy, so both must have seen the same thing.

Atleast he got another shot to play. Too bad he didn't make the most of it.

UnderArmour
01-11-2008, 10:12 PM
He came across as an obnoxious toward the start, and he is. But as it went on, the more he made sense. Elvis and Simeon would have been much better than Engelberger Elvis. He actually does make the case as to why Bates had to go. Makes no sense not to have the best players playing and wreaking havoc.

claymore
01-11-2008, 10:13 PM
If he was any good Dungy would have kept him. He has a hard time with being a has been...................................

Watchthemiddle
01-11-2008, 10:16 PM
If he was any good Dungy would have kept him. He has a hard time with being a has been...................................

Exactly since they already coached/played together.

shank
01-11-2008, 10:18 PM
if he didn't go and have the same results in indy, then MAYBE i'd believe that he still has it and was black-balled by shanny and co.

from the things i heard when he was signed and watching it play out, i knew that things were not going well. i don't know if it really was the shoulder or the fact that rice is in denial that he's just not good anymore, but it turned into a bad situation.

it does seem weird how some players come here and love it here, and others claim to have experiences like this. hard to tell if shanny can be totally hot or cold depending on the player or if these players are really just conceded and throwing out accusations.

BANJOPICKER1
01-11-2008, 10:29 PM
I thought they should have played him more but they kept saying he was not 100%...Would have been awesome if he had started him more just to see what he had but if the Colts say he sucked and we dropped him,guess my mind is made up!:D

GOOOOOOO BRONCOS 2008!!!!!!!!!!!

jrelway
01-11-2008, 10:36 PM
couldnt start for the broncos, and couldnt start for the colts..and your *****ing why you didnt get the starting nod? cause you suck. piece of @#$#. and to think i was happy when denver brought him in.

BOSSHOGG30
01-11-2008, 10:46 PM
I agree with him that Engelberger shouldn't have been starting... that's about it. But it shouldn't of been him and Doom... but Doom and Crowder.

WARHORSE
01-11-2008, 11:07 PM
Simeon, Simeon, Simeon..............................:tsk:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/warhorse001/FACESLAP.gif


COME OUT OF IT MAHN!!!!!!!!!!

DenBronx
01-11-2008, 11:12 PM
rice is a cry baby with a huge ego and everyone knows it.

he does bring up a few good points though. kind of makes you wonder what these coaches will promise these players before they sign. and i agree on that he should have been playing over engelberger.....but that's about it.

pnbronco
01-11-2008, 11:17 PM
Simeon, Simeon, Simeon..............................:tsk:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/warhorse001/FACESLAP.gif


COME OUT OF IT MAHN!!!!!!!!!!

Couldn't say it better myself..:elefant:

BroncoWave
01-11-2008, 11:21 PM
I'm pretty sure had Rice been good enough to start over Engleberger, he would have started over Engleberger. Obviously Shanahan though that Engleberger was better based on what he saw in practice. And based on the fact that he got cut from Indy, it just proves further how much he sucked this season.

Italianmobstr7
01-12-2008, 12:02 AM
Rice SUCKS. He's a HACK!!!

Bronco4ever
01-12-2008, 12:23 AM
http://www.bostondirtdogs.com/2004/LM_bud.jpg

...Simeon can't do everythang!

Tned
01-12-2008, 12:41 AM
Ok, let me see if I understand it. Shanahan gives him a chance to be a starter if he can be healthy and be the best player on the town, but when he can't even dominate on the practice squad, and then can't stick more than two games with the Colts, Mike's the bad guy?

Simple Jaded
01-12-2008, 01:17 AM
I hope he didn't forget to pack his skirts......

nevcraw
01-12-2008, 01:22 AM
He came across as an obnoxious toward the start, and he is. But as it went on, the more he made sense. Elvis and Simeon would have been much better than Engelberger Elvis. He actually does make the case as to why Bates had to go. Makes no sense not to have the best players playing and wreaking havoc.

Please...
Simeone couldn't dominate the Scout team.. He even admits to it, well sort of..
The Broncos couldn't stop the run, and although Engleburghumperdink is not the the worlds greatest player he certainly was more consistant than the Rice in there.
The Broncos were grasping for straws, when they signed Rice, hoping to dam up the dyke. Didn't work, but not their fault for trying..

NameUsedBefore
01-12-2008, 01:43 AM
John Engelberger. Are you kidding me? Come on now.

I have to admit this made me lol...

UnderArmour
01-12-2008, 01:44 AM
Please...
Simeone couldn't dominate the Scout team.. He even admits to it, well sort of..
The Broncos couldn't stop the run, and although Engleburghumperdink is not the the worlds greatest player he certainly was more consistant than the Rice in there.
The Broncos were grasping for straws, when they signed Rice, hoping to dam up the dyke. Didn't work, but not their fault for trying..

You honestly think most Veteran players want to play scout team? Especially someone who regards himself so highly like Rice does? I don't think a whole lot of that as being a mark against anything other than his character. He definitely would have been an upgrade over Engelberger.

nevcraw
01-12-2008, 02:27 AM
I truly believe if Rice was capable of playing at at decent level he would have been on the field.
You think they sign a vet just to with him and then cut him? Not likely.. Guy couldn't contribute, and blamed the team for his inability to contribute. Seems pretty cut and dry.
Colts had big need to fill the Freeney void but let Rice come and go with out blinking an eye. Tells you all you need to know about his shoulder or his attitude..

Jwalk - JayCutty6Goes - CasinoRoyal
01-12-2008, 02:41 AM
Rice has always been a blow-hard....he is a "me guy". I remember when he played for the AZ Cardinals and he threw Pat Tillman under the bus. He is a classless, selfish SOB.

Why because he tells the truth??

Jwalk - JayCutty6Goes - CasinoRoyal
01-12-2008, 02:44 AM
Flat out Rice shoulda started over Engelberger who is a freakin MOP.

Bronco4ever
01-12-2008, 02:53 AM
You honestly think most Veteran players want to play scout team? Especially someone who regards himself so highly like Rice does? I don't think a whole lot of that as being a mark against anything other than his character. He definitely would have been an upgrade over Engelberger.

No, veteran players don't like to play with the scout team, but the reality of the matter is that veteran players also don't want to be cut. When the people in command of your playing future ask you to jump, you should ask how high, not asking why. If you can gain the respect of your coaches and play hard, you will be promoted, like in any other walk in life. Rice obviously had issues with the fair and proper way to move up in the depth chart.

Bronco9798
01-12-2008, 02:56 AM
Rice has to run his mouth to cover his pathetic play. He's a ******* loser.

silkamilkamonico
01-12-2008, 03:27 AM
You honestly think most Veteran players want to play scout team? Especially someone who regards himself so highly like Rice does? I don't think a whole lot of that as being a mark against anything other than his character. He definitely would have been an upgrade over Engelberger.

He sure didn't play like it in the games he did play in.

There's a reason why he couldn't get fixated into the rotation in Denver....

There's a reason why Dungy basically paid his year contract for 2 games, and then got rid of him, but not his contract.....

There's a reason why he isn't in the NFL at the moment...

There's a reason why he's doing a Pilot called "Fallen"....


There's only one reason for all of the above...


...he sucks

Bronco9798
01-12-2008, 03:28 AM
No, veteran players don't like to play with the scout team, but the reality of the matter is that veteran players also don't want to be cut. When the people in command of your playing future ask you to jump, you should ask how high, not asking why. If you can gain the respect of your coaches and play hard, you will be promoted, like in any other walk in life. Rice obviously had issues with the fair and proper way to move up in the depth chart.

That's the sad part, he couldn't play better than Engleberger. He ran his mouth. That's all he did.

BroncoBJ
01-12-2008, 04:50 AM
:lol: @ Rice's comment about John. That was the best part about it.
oh well. I will just add him to the list of Quitterson and Gardner. :elefant;

Jwalk - JayCutty6Goes - CasinoRoyal
01-12-2008, 04:54 AM
Id put money on Rice playing better than freakin engelberger, Engleberger will be lucky to be on this team next year. Crowder and Moss should start next year.

fcspikeit
01-12-2008, 05:09 AM
Id put money on Rice playing better than freakin engelberger, Engleberger will be lucky to be on this team next year. Crowder and Moss should start next year.

So what does that prove? :confused:

Rice got cut this year, TWICE! :shocked:

So how again does that prove he is better then Engelberger? :frusty:

fcspikeit
01-12-2008, 05:24 AM
http://www.myfoxcolorado.com/myfox/pages/Sports/Detail?contentId=5463455&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=6.2.1

What a joke!

The guy couldn't even get a starting job on one of the worst D-lines in the NFL.

Why should he have been able to start, because of something he had done in the past? Give me a brake, why didn't he go out and win the job? He wasn't willing to earn a spot on the scout team.

Yet Shanahan should have just made him the starter. Man I'm glad we got that cancer out of our locker room!

I can't wait to see "Fallen" “It will be shot 24/7,” What is it a reality show? I love watching reality shows about washed up pro athletes who still believe they should get what they want because of their name :rolleyes:

broncofanatic1987
01-12-2008, 08:10 AM
He came across as an obnoxious toward the start, and he is. But as it went on, the more he made sense. Elvis and Simeon would have been much better than Engelberger Elvis. He actually does make the case as to why Bates had to go. Makes no sense not to have the best players playing and wreaking havoc.

Actually, he makes more of a case as to why Shanahan should go. When he says, “That team don’t have a criteria of what a defense is”, he's basically saying that the team doesn't have a clear vision of what their defense is and that's Shanahan's fault. You can bet dollars to donuts that Bates had a clear vision of what his defense was supposed to be. We will never truly know how much Shanahan interfered with that vision by either making decisions that weren't consistent with Bates' philosophy or by not making decisions that were consistent with Bates' philosophy. If the head coach isn't committed to the plan, it's not going to work. My guess is, that's the real reason the defense was so lousy this season.

I don't advocate firing Shanahan this offseason, but if the defense isn't in the top 15 next year, he should be fired if the they miss the playoffs again.

As for Rice, he's probably washed up and has been since before he joined the Broncos. I doubt putting him and Dumervil together would have made any difference, except possibly in obvious passing situations. I'm sure if you ask Shanahan and got a true answer, he would say that Engelberger got the start over Rice because he was better against the run. Since the Broncos got rid of Warren, they didn't have the tackles they needed to hold the middle to allow the ends to do what they were supposed to do. If Warren had stayed, maybe Rice could have started along with Dumervil.

Bronco9798
01-12-2008, 09:34 AM
Actually, he makes more of a case as to why Shanahan should go. When he says, “That team don’t have a criteria of what a defense is”, he's basically saying that the team doesn't have a clear vision of what their defense is and that's Shanahan's fault. You can bet dollars to donuts that Bates had a clear vision of what his defense was supposed to be. We will never truly know how much Shanahan interfered with that vision by either making decisions that weren't consistent with Bates' philosophy or by not making decisions that were consistent with Bates' philosophy. If the head coach isn't committed to the plan, it's not going to work. My guess is, that's the real reason the defense was so lousy this season.

I don't advocate firing Shanahan this offseason, but if the defense isn't in the top 15 next year, he should be fired if the they miss the playoffs again.

As for Rice, he's probably washed up and has been since before he joined the Broncos. I doubt putting him and Dumervil together would have made any difference, except possibly in obvious passing situations. I'm sure if you ask Shanahan and got a true answer, he would say that Engelberger got the start over Rice because he was better against the run. Since the Broncos got rid of Warren, they didn't have the tackles they needed to hold the middle to allow the ends to do what they were supposed to do. If Warren had stayed, maybe Rice could have started along with Dumervil.

Shanny gave Bates total control of the defense. He didn't interfere with a thing. Bates had his opportunity and blew it. Period. Rice is a friggin idiot. He was here for half of a season. He has no clue about the organization or how it is ran.

BroncoWave
01-12-2008, 10:04 AM
Why are people so convinced that Rice is better than Engleberger? Did anyone watch Rice play this season? He was terrible. Like I have said, Shanahan sees all the practices, we don't. Obviously Engleberger was playing better or Rice would have started.

Bronco9798
01-12-2008, 10:30 AM
Rice was a horrible signing. I can't believe Shanny even considered him. What a horrible mistake, like Sam Adams. FA signings were very good last year.

SmilinAssasSin27
01-12-2008, 10:48 AM
He's an ass...but he isn't wrong about the D being a mess and there being a lack of a consistent philospohy.

TXBRONC
01-12-2008, 11:42 AM
He's an ass...but he isn't wrong about the D being a mess and there being a lack of a consistent philospohy.

That's statement of the obvious (NOT you but Rice.)

topscribe
01-12-2008, 11:52 AM
What is Rice talking about? The Broncos did start him for six games. No sacks.
It took the Colts all of two games to find out he's a has-been. Now, he has
proven he is also a blow-hard.

To think I once was a fan of his . . .

-----

SmilinAssasSin27
01-12-2008, 11:53 AM
But according to him, he's a sure fire hall of famer...

Lonestar
01-12-2008, 12:19 PM
some clowns have outstanding talent and show up part time..

Some guys play all the time, because they are not blessed with outstanding talent.

I'll take the later every time, while I may not get 15 sacks a year, how many other plays be made, that would have been missed because rice, price, warren took a play off.

silkamilkamonico
01-12-2008, 12:50 PM
Id put money on Rice playing better than freakin engelberger, Engleberger will be lucky to be on this team next year. Crowder and Moss should start next year.

You lost.

Rice was worse then freakin Engelberger.

At least Engelberger contributes in the run game, where the only contribution Rice made was for the offense.

WARHORSE
01-12-2008, 01:03 PM
The best thing, and stupidest thing, that Rice did was give the money back.


Thank you.


Dont let the door hit you on the way out sport.:tsk:



Theres a job waitin for you at the local busstop.

WARHORSE
01-12-2008, 01:04 PM
Almost forgot.


Take this with you, it will help you in the long run.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/warhorse001/FACESLAP.gif

fcspikeit
01-12-2008, 02:54 PM
But according to him, he's a sure fire hall of famer...

Maybe he should name is reality show, "Life according to him" or "I love me some me"

T.O might have to sue him over that one.....:lol:

WARHORSE
01-12-2008, 03:28 PM
Maybe he should name is reality show, "Life according to him" or "I love me some me"

T.O might have to sue him over that one.....:lol:


How about something original:

Simeon Rice: Mini Me?


The Six Million Dollar Rice?


Why I Should Be President?


Sigmund Rice?


YO SIMEON? (instead of YO MAMA)



My Favorite:


DOG RICE: The 'Defensive'.............. END?


THE UNTOUCHABLE?



I guess Im really bored.:tsk:

MileHighWrath
01-12-2008, 04:00 PM
Why didn't he call Dungy a liar? Basically the same thing happened but with far less patience. Shanny actually allowed him every opportunity to be a starter but the guy simply can NOT hang. If you aren't better than Engleberger, you don't start, Engleberger does. It's that simple. The only reason Engleberger starts and not Rice is because he's BETTER THAN RICE.

Some people need to keep their mouth shut, Simeon has always been one of those people, from his time here (AZ) to Tampa, Denver, etc. His mouth flaps faster than his 2 cent brain.

topscribe
01-12-2008, 05:02 PM
some clowns have outstanding talent and show up part time..

Some guys play all the time, because they are not blessed with outstanding talent.

I'll take the later every time, while I may not get 15 sacks a year, how many other plays be made, that would have been missed because rice, price, warren took a play off.

The New England Patriots are loaded with the latter . . .

-----

broncofanatic1987
01-12-2008, 07:13 PM
Shanny gave Bates total control of the defense. He didn't interfere with a thing. Bates had his opportunity and blew it. Period. Rice is a friggin idiot. He was here for half of a season. He has no clue about the organization or how it is ran.

Shanahan didn't give Bates total control of the defense as evidenced by the fact that it was Shanahan's decision to put an eighth man in the box and abandon the scheme for a different one.

If you believe every decision regarding the defense prior to that was Bates', I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you.

Rice has been around the league long enough to make an informed opinion about whether or not a team he is playing for has an idea about how to play defense. He's not the only player to speak out about the inconsistent philosophy on defense. Foxworth has spoken out about it as well. That inconsistency starts with Shanahan. He apparently didn't fully buy into Bates' scheme, so it failed. If Slowik fails to make the defense a top 15 defense and the Broncos miss the playoffs, Shanahan should be fired. Shanahan is in charge of player personnel. He's the reason the Broncos didn't have the talent on defense to execute the scheme.

Lonestar
01-12-2008, 07:29 PM
The New England Patriots are loaded with the latter . . .

-----


actually they are loaded with both.. What superstars they do not have are blue collar non-union with incentive. They all hold each other accountable no one taking plays off..

I remember many years of Moss taking plays off when he was not the primary guy.. On run plays I wonder if he is this year?

broncogirl7
01-12-2008, 07:56 PM
Simeon...Simeon...Simeon. You only get to start if you are playing well, and you weren't. Good riddance.:elefant:

Bronco9798
01-12-2008, 08:03 PM
Shanahan didn't give Bates total control of the defense as evidenced by the fact that it was Shanahan's decision to put an eighth man in the box and abandon the scheme for a different one.

If you believe every decision regarding the defense prior to that was Bates', I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you.

Rice has been around the league long enough to make an informed opinion about whether or not a team he is playing for has an idea about how to play defense. He's not the only player to speak out about the inconsistent philosophy on defense. Foxworth has spoken out about it as well. That inconsistency starts with Shanahan. He apparently didn't fully buy into Bates' scheme, so it failed. If Slowik fails to make the defense a top 15 defense and the Broncos miss the playoffs, Shanahan should be fired. Shanahan is in charge of player personnel. He's the reason the Broncos didn't have the talent on defense to execute the scheme.

You're the one that needs to wake up. It's been in several publications that Bates had total control of the defense and he was the one that wanted Adams, Warren traded, etc., Shanahan trusted Bates and trusted him with the players he wanted. Shanahan approved the deals after Bates let him know what and who he needed.

You go in every thread and blame Shanahan for that fiasco. He does take some blame cause he is the coach and the GM. But it was Bates who requested the players and the moves that were made on defense.

You need to get a clue.

broncofanatic1987
01-12-2008, 08:39 PM
You're the one that needs to wake up. It's been in several publications that Bates had total control of the defense and he was the one that wanted Adams, Warren traded, etc., Shanahan trusted Bates and trusted him with the players he wanted. Shanahan approved the deals after Bates let him know what and who he needed.

You go in every thread and blame Shanahan for that fiasco. He does take some blame cause he is the coach and the GM. But it was Bates who requested the players and the moves that were made on defense.

You need to get a clue.

Who's the one that decided to abandon the scheme? Shanahan, that's who. Who's in charge of personnel? Shanahan, that's who. Just because Bates may have had a few specific requests, that doesn't relieve Shanahan from the responsibility of bringing in the talent to execute the defense.

You get a clue. Bates didn't have total control. If he did, they wouldn't have abandoned the scheme after only five games. That was Shanahan's decision, not Bates'. It was Shanahan's fault that there wasn't any consistency in defensive philosophy because it was him that demanded the change. That means Bates didn't have total control.

TXBRONC
01-12-2008, 08:39 PM
Shanahan didn't give Bates total control of the defense as evidenced by the fact that it was Shanahan's decision to put an eighth man in the box and abandon the scheme for a different one.

If you believe every decision regarding the defense prior to that was Bates', I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you.

Rice has been around the league long enough to make an informed opinion about whether or not a team he is playing for has an idea about how to play defense. He's not the only player to speak out about the inconsistent philosophy on defense. Foxworth has spoken out about it as well. That inconsistency starts with Shanahan. He apparently didn't fully buy into Bates' scheme, so it failed. If Slowik fails to make the defense a top 15 defense and the Broncos miss the playoffs, Shanahan should be fired. Shanahan is in charge of player personnel. He's the reason the Broncos didn't have the talent on defense to execute the scheme.

There is recent write up on the Pro Football Weekly website that says Bates had autonomy.

Bronco9798
01-12-2008, 08:42 PM
Who's the one that decided to abandon the scheme? Shanahan, that's who. Who's in charge of personnel? Shanahan, that's who. Just because Bates may have had a few specific requests, that doesn't relieve Shanahan from the responsibility of bringing in the talent to execute the defense.

You get a clue. Bates didn't have total control. If he did, they wouldn't have abandoned the scheme after only five games. That was Shanahan's decision, not Bates'. It was Shanahan's fault that there wasn't any consistency in defensive philosophy because it was him that demanded the change. That means Bates didn't have total control.

Thank god he did. It wasn't working. Shanny stepped in and abandoned that antiquated scheme. He had too, Bates couldn't get it working.

You have a hard on for Shanny. You spew your hate in every thread you visit. It's obvious where you lay all the blame.

Lonestar
01-12-2008, 08:43 PM
Thank god he did. It wasn't working. Shanny stepped in and abandoned that antiquated scheme. He had too, Bates couldn't get it working.

You have a hard on for Shanny. You spew your hate in thread you visit. It's obvious where you lay all the blame.


Since mikey is in total control of this club, where would you place it?

Bronco9798
01-12-2008, 08:47 PM
Since mikey is in total control of this club, where would you place it?

You're overlooking this as well. You two have a hard on for Shanny. You guys reek of hatred for the man in every thread you guys visit. Shanahan is in control and he delegated the authority to Bates to oversee the Defense. Shanny had to step in cause it was a total failure. That's when Bates was no longer in control. Shanny had to step in. His scheme was a disaster.

TXBRONC
01-12-2008, 08:49 PM
Since mikey is in total control of this club, where would you place it?

As the PFW article that I have quoted in another thread, Bates had total autonomy. That's exact words. Also if you want to go that route after Shanahan took the reigns back that's when defense actually played a little better.

You would be better served by finding something just a touch more concrete than your personal dislike for Shanahan.

Also if you really think you could do a better job step up to the plate and offer Bowlen your resume.

Tned
01-12-2008, 08:50 PM
Yes, Shanny had the ultimate responsiblity, he is the head coach. However, I don't blame him for letting his defensive coach run the defensive show.

TXBRONC
01-12-2008, 08:59 PM
Yes, Shanny had the ultimate responsibility, he is the head coach. However, I don't blame him for letting his defensive coach run the defensive show.

Bates came in with a solid reputation. Shanahan gave him full control of the defense according to PFW and defense was underwhelming.

broncofanatic1987
01-12-2008, 09:06 PM
Thank god he did. It wasn't working. Shanny stepped in and abandoned that antiquated scheme. He had too, Bates couldn't get it working.

You have a hard on for Shanny. You spew your hate in every thread you visit. It's obvious where you lay all the blame.

I don't hate Shanahan. I'm just not going to be a homer for him anymore. He is to blame. He didn't commit to a scheme that was a proven success everywhere it's been implemented. He fired Coyer after it was him that forced Coyer to blitz less, even though that was a big part of the defense's success in 2005. And then, he didn't even bring in the talent on the defensive line to execute that defense. The main reason for blitzing is when you can't generate pressure with just your front four. The Broncos couldn't do it, but Shanahan ordered less blitzing from Coyer's defense, so the defense didn't stand a chance. Even with the defense starting out by not allowing a touchdown in the first eleven quarters of the season, I still knew it wasn't good enough to help the team win down the stretch. I knew that good teams wouldn't have much trouble moving the ball and scoring. And that was the case. But, Shanahan wanted less blitzing even though the front four wasn't getting pressure on the quarterback. Bates is only the latest defensive boss to be the scapegoat.

With Pat Bowlen being committed to Shanahan for life and saying that the team will start relying on the draft more than free agency, I'm hoping Shanahan will finally get it right. I will be disappointed next year if the defense is not a top 15 defense, the Broncos don't make the playoffs, and Shanahan is still the coach. I'll get over it and continue to root for the Broncos and Shanahan.

nevcraw
01-12-2008, 10:27 PM
I don't hate Shanahan. I'm just not going to be a homer for him anymore. He is to blame. He didn't commit to a scheme that was a proven success everywhere it's been implemented. He fired Coyer after it was him that forced Coyer to blitz less, even though that was a big part of the defense's success in 2005. And then, he didn't even bring in the talent on the defensive line to execute that defense. The main reason for blitzing is when you can't generate pressure with just your front four. The Broncos couldn't do it, but Shanahan ordered less blitzing from Coyer's defense, so the defense didn't stand a chance. Even with the defense starting out by not allowing a touchdown in the first eleven quarters of the season, I still knew it wasn't good enough to help the team win down the stretch. I knew that good teams wouldn't have much trouble moving the ball and scoring. And that was the case. But, Shanahan wanted less blitzing even though the front four wasn't getting pressure on the quarterback. Bates is only the latest defensive boss to be the scapegoat.

With Pat Bowlen being committed to Shanahan for life and saying that the team will start relying on the draft more than free agency, I'm hoping Shanahan will finally get it right. I will be disappointed next year if the defense is not a top 15 defense, the Broncos don't make the playoffs, and Shanahan is still the coach. I'll get over it and continue to root for the Broncos and Shanahan.

How much longer did you want him to give Bates' D a chance? They were getting spanked by the run and the and the D could not get off the field.
He had to add the 8th man in the box to stop the bleeding.
Blame him for bringing in bates, firing Coyer, not drafting well etc. but give the guy credit foir not just letting it play out with out stepping in and making changes to iimprove the dismal D.
I as well look for the D to rebound to atleast the middle of the pack.

Lonestar
01-12-2008, 11:39 PM
As the PFW article that I have quoted in another thread, Bates had total autonomy. That's exact words. Also if you want to go that route after Shanahan took the reigns back that's when defense actually played a little better.

You would be better served by finding something just a touch more concrete than your personal dislike for Shanahan.

Also if you really think you could do a better job step up to the plate and offer Bowlen your resume.

Yes the article did say that Jim had the authority but he also had Slowik in between him and the players, whom liked him.

He also had mikey breathing down his back as an outsider, do you really believe that the mastermind control freak gave Bates the job without some prodding?

Just after he had named coyers replacement as DC.

mikey is a fine Offensive wizard and I'm sure has a through knowledge of the defensive side.. If he did not how would he be able to defeat it.. BUT IMO bates was an afterthought most likely at Pat urging to bring in a Proven guy to over see the problem.

Mikey has screwed the pooch in 11 of 13 drafts on day one. Especially if you factor out LB.. He has had ONE great RB poortiss, one really good DL guy in price although he yearly had to be motivated to play more than part time. A couple of players that started only because we did not have anyone better at the time, oneal, foster, tater and ashley who have all moved on to start for a few games elsewhere till they figure out how bad they were.
Thats if I'm counting correctly 6-7 players out of those 11 years on day one that have produced for us..

Sorry but as someone in charge that is unacceptable. Ah you say the last 2 drafts have been good ones I say that they were and since your giving credit to Bates for those draft choices. I guess we can factor that one out. So that means 2006 where humdinger was really pushing for Cutler and who knows if he was not the prime mover Marshal and Scheffler also..

Sorry but the big reason this team has been in decline since John Left was mikey and hes DAFT day ideas.. Coupled with spending way to much on FA which sounds like if Pat has anything to say will SLOW DOWN a bunch. Also sounds like he whispered in mikeys ear about low life players that have character issues.

Maybe Pat will clean up this team after giving mikey a pass the past 11 years..

TXBRONC
01-13-2008, 12:34 AM
Yes the article did say that Jim had the authority but he also had Slowik in between him and the players, whom liked him.

He also had mikey breathing down his back as an outsider, do you really believe that the mastermind control freak gave Bates the job without some prodding?

Just after he had named coyers replacement as DC.

mikey is a fine Offensive wizard and I'm sure has a through knowledge of the defensive side.. If he did not how would he be able to defeat it.. BUT IMO bates was an afterthought most likely at Pat urging to bring in a Proven guy to over see the problem.

Mikey has screwed the pooch in 11 of 13 drafts on day one. Especially if you factor out LB.. He has had ONE great RB poortiss, one really good DL guy in price although he yearly had to be motivated to play more than part time. A couple of players that started only because we did not have anyone better at the time, oneal, foster, tater and ashley who have all moved on to start for a few games elsewhere till they figure out how bad they were.
Thats if I'm counting correctly 6-7 players out of those 11 years on day one that have produced for us..

Sorry but as someone in charge that is unacceptable. Ah you say the last 2 drafts have been good ones I say that they were and since your giving credit to Bates for those draft choices. I guess we can factor that one out. So that means 2006 where humdinger was really pushing for Cutler and who knows if he was not the prime mover Marshal and Scheffler also..

Sorry but the big reason this team has been in decline since John Left was mikey and hes DAFT day ideas.. Coupled with spending way to much on FA which sounds like if Pat has anything to say will SLOW DOWN a bunch. Also sounds like he whispered in mikeys ear about low life players that have character issues.

Maybe Pat will clean up this team after giving mikey a pass the past 11 years..

You were saying that when Bates first came to town. A common theme of yours was "There's a new sheriff in town...." It's easy to waffle after the fact.

Jwalk - JayCutty6Goes - CasinoRoyal
01-13-2008, 04:40 AM
You lost.

Rice was worse then freakin Engelberger.

At least Engelberger contributes in the run game, where the only contribution Rice made was for the offense.

Yeah contributed to us getting gashed lmao, What can you show me that wotn show any thing other than guys contributing to the horribleness<just made a new word i think......

Stargazer
01-13-2008, 04:58 AM
Rice can unload all he wants. He's not here anymore.

SmilinAssasSin27
01-13-2008, 09:27 AM
FLAMING RACIST!

There it's finally been said. He loves Doom, who gets abused on running downs, but hates Engleberger...even though Burger is clearly better than Rice is now. He hates Shanny, who have him 6 weeks, but "wasn't in Indy long enough to have an opinion on Dungy." What's the common denominator? It's a black thing, point black. Feel free to bash me and call ME the racist, but a spade is a spade and it had to be said. Dude is a racist.

Bronco Bible
01-13-2008, 09:28 AM
He just comes off as a whiney (I'll take my ball & go home )baby:coffee:

Dean
01-13-2008, 10:36 AM
I don't hate Shanahan. I'm just not going to be a homer for him anymore. He is to blame. He didn't commit to a scheme that was a proven success everywhere its been implemented. He fired Coyer after it was him that forced Coyer to blitz less, even though that was a big part of the defense's success in 2005. And then, he didn't even bring in the talent on the defensive line to execute that defense. The main reason for blitzing is when you can't generate pressure with just your front four. The Broncos couldn't do it, but Shanahan ordered less blitzing from Coyer's defense, so the defense didn't stand a chance. Even with the defense starting out by not allowing a touchdown in the first eleven quarters of the season, I still knew it wasn't good enough to help the team win down the stretch. I knew that good teams wouldn't have much trouble moving the ball and scoring. And that was the case. But, Shanahan wanted less blitzing even though the front four wasn't getting pressure on the quarterback. Bates is only the latest defensive boss to be the scapegoat.

With Pat Bowlen being committed to Shanahan for life and saying that the team will start relying on the draft more than free agency, I'm hoping Shanahan will finally get it right. I will be disappointed next year if the defense is not a top 15 defense, the Broncos don't make the playoffs, and Shanahan is still the coach. I'll get over it and continue to root for the Broncos and Shanahan.

Look up Green Bay's 2005 defensive stats. His defense was very weak versus the run (23 @ 125.6 yd/game) and gave up a lot of points (21.5 pts/game- only 12 worse). Sounds familiar doesn't it?

His defense performed better than Slowick's the year before but then he had different players.

I am not sure where Bates ever got the defensive guru title? Maybe Miami's defense was better than I remember? Who knows but he wasn't all that great at Green Bay or maybe his accomplishments have been embellished in the telling.

What I can tell you is his defensive scheme was not working in Denver and it didn't look like it was ever going to during this season. His personnel move also leave me scratching my head.

weazel
01-13-2008, 04:16 PM
sounds like an over-the-hill player crying because he doesnt want to face the fact that he is not good enough to play anymore. He had no answer for why Dungy released him, did he?

Rice has always been a classless fool, why would anyone expect different now.

SmilinAssasSin27
01-13-2008, 04:55 PM
cuz he was a bronco

Lonestar
01-13-2008, 07:40 PM
You were saying that when Bates first came to town. A common theme of yours was "There's a new sheriff in town...." It's easy to waffle after the fact.


At the time I thought mikey had finally seen the light that he needed to allow competent proven coaches come in and do what they do best..

Bates has been a winner and leader in every place he has been.. His defenses in MIA and then again in GB were forces in the league.

But it is now painfully obvious, that mikey did not bring him in under his own volition. Because we all know that mikey can't be wrong.

I guess I should have realized that mikey will not allow himself not to be in the MAN..

Yep, TX you have once again reminded me that, I too am not infallible. I'm also guessing that you TOO have never erred in your views on the Broncos, but then I'm not one to drag up old posts for the fun of it..

Thanks pard..

broncofanatic1987
01-13-2008, 08:17 PM
Look up Green Bay's 2005 defensive stats. His defense was very weak versus the run (23 @ 125.6 yd/game) and gave up a lot of points (21.5 pts/game- only 12 worse). Sounds familiar doesn't it?

His defense performed better than Slowick's the year before but then he had different players.

I am not sure where Bates ever got the defensive guru title? Maybe Miami's defense was better than I remember? Who knows but he wasn't all that great at Green Bay or maybe his accomplishments have been embellished in the telling.

What I can tell you is his defensive scheme was not working in Denver and it didn't look like it was ever going to during this season. His personnel move also leave me scratching my head.

Bates produced top ten defenses in Miami and Green Bay, every single year. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistics?stat=team&pos=def&league=nfl&season=2&year=2005
Rushing defense and points per game are only part of the picture, not the whole picture. The points per game can be explained in part by turnovers by the offense. Don't forget, 2005 is one of those years when people were saying that Favre should retire because he just wasn't the same anymore(he threw 29 interceptions versus 20 touchdowns http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistics?stat=pass&pos=off&league=nfl&season=2&year=2005). It's pretty difficult for any defense to keep the other team from scoring when they're always getting a short field. Also, turnovers returned for touchdowns and kick/punt returns for touchdowns count against the defense's points/game stats too. I don't know how many of those occurred in 2005 for the Packers, but there were likely a few.

I have doubts about Shanahan's commitment to the defense. Bailing on the defense after five weeks will do that though.:defense:;)

Bronco9798
01-13-2008, 08:31 PM
BRONCOSFORUMS MEMORANDUM

DATE: JANUARY 13, 2007

FROM: PEOPLE TIRED OF HEARING IT

TO: MIKE SHANAHAN HATERS

THRU: ALL CONCERNED

Jim Bates is no longer employed by the Denver Broncos. After 5 weeks his scheme and his personnel decisions were rendered useless. The Head coach, Mike Shanahan, had to intervene and release several players Mr. Bates had persuaded Mike Shanahan to sign or bring in to play defense. You will no longer have to suffer this antiquated scheme no more. It has been determined that fat DT's are rendered hungry and useless.

Please refer all future posts about Mr. Bates to your nearest toilet. They are no longer needed. Your arguments are worthless. Mr. Bates has taken his scheme and gone home.

Thank you....

Dean
01-13-2008, 09:05 PM
Bates produced top ten defenses in Miami and Green Bay, every single year. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistics?stat=team&pos=def&league=nfl&season=2&year=2005
Rushing defense and points per game are only part of the picture, not the whole picture. The points per game can be explained in part by turnovers by the offense. Don't forget, 2005 is one of those years when people were saying that Favre should retire because he just wasn't the same anymore(he threw 29 interceptions versus 20 touchdowns http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistics?stat=pass&pos=off&league=nfl&season=2&year=2005). It's pretty difficult for any defense to keep the other team from scoring when they're always getting a short field. Also, turnovers returned for touchdowns and kick/punt returns for touchdowns count against the defense's points/game stats too. I don't know how many of those occurred in 2005 for the Packers, but there were likely a few.

I have doubts about Shanahan's commitment to the defense. Bailing on the defense after five weeks will do that though.:defense:;)

In Green Bay they were able to get turn overs When your offense is on the field the defense looks pretty good. Bates did very well at Miami my point is that his Packer defense had exactly the same two major problem as the Bronco defense had this year. They couldn't effectively stop the run and they gave up lots of points.

You are correct that rushing defense and points yielded are only part of the picture. They are, however, a very big part. If you feel better by thinking that it was some other part of the team responsible go ahead.

Oh and if you watch Green Bay's present defense now they have altered the alignment of the defensive ends to a tight 9 technique rather than being so wide and their tackles not not at all the wide bodies he used. They are around 300-315 and penetrate gaps.

Bronco9798
01-13-2008, 09:06 PM
Don't waste your time Dean....

TXBRONC
01-13-2008, 09:36 PM
At the time I thought mikey had finally seen the light that he needed to allow competent proven coaches come in and do what they do best..

Bates has been a winner and leader in every place he has been.. His defenses in MIA and then again in GB were forces in the league.

But it is now painfully obvious, that mikey did not bring him in under his own volition. Because we all know that mikey can't be wrong.

I guess I should have realized that mikey will not allow himself not to be in the MAN..

Yep, TX you have once again reminded me that, I too am not infallible. I'm also guessing that you TOO have never erred in your views on the Broncos, but then I'm not one to drag up old posts for the fun of it..

Thanks pard..

Bringing up the same old criticisms time again it tantamount to the same thing. ;)

TXBRONC
01-13-2008, 09:41 PM
At the time I thought mikey had finally seen the light that he needed to allow competent proven coaches come in and do what they do best..

Bates has been a winner and leader in every place he has been.. His defenses in MIA and then again in GB were forces in the league.

But it is now painfully obvious, that mikey did not bring him in under his own volition. Because we all know that mikey can't be wrong.

I guess I should have realized that mikey will not allow himself not to be in the MAN..

Yep, TX you have once again reminded me that, I too am not infallible. I'm also guessing that you TOO have never erred in your views on the Broncos, but then I'm not one to drag up old posts for the fun of it..

Thanks pard..

By the way have you read any of Dean's posts concerning Bates? If I have understood the resident coach correctly, he doesn't think Bates was all that and box chocolates.

broncofanatic1987
01-13-2008, 10:05 PM
In Green Bay they were able to get turn overs When your offense is on the field the defense looks pretty good. Bates did very well at Miami my point is that his Packer defense had exactly the same two major problem as the Bronco defense had this year. They couldn't effectively stop the run and they gave up lots of points.

You are correct that rushing defense and points yielded are only part of the picture. They are, however, a very big part. If you feel better by thinking that it was some other part of the team responsible go ahead.

Oh and if you watch Green Bay's present defense now they have altered the alignment of the defensive ends to a tight 9 technique rather than being so wide and their tackles not not at all the wide bodies he used. They are around 300-315 and penetrate gaps.

In 2005 the Packers had a minus 23 turnover ratio http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistics?stat=givetake&pos=def&league=nfc&order=true&season=2&year=2005. So yes, I would put a large part of the blame on the offense. They're the ones that gave the ball away 42 times.

Lonestar
01-13-2008, 10:58 PM
By the way have you read any of Dean's posts concerning Bates? If I have understood the resident coach correctly, he doesn't think Bates was all that and box chocolates.


Guess you did not notice the high fives I've given him, either..

Now you can have the last word as you normally have to have....

fcspikeit
01-13-2008, 11:42 PM
At the time I thought mikey had finally seen the light that he needed to allow competent proven coaches come in and do what they do best..

Bates has been a winner and leader in every place he has been.. His defenses in MIA and then again in GB were forces in the league.

But it is now painfully obvious, that mikey did not bring him in under his own volition. Because we all know that mikey can't be wrong.

I guess I should have realized that mikey will not allow himself not to be in the MAN..


Jr,, I am trying to see your point, and I agree with some of what you have said, but what was Shanahan to do?

If there is fault to be found with Shanahan, its that he brought Bates here in the first place. He had to know we didn't have the personnel for Bates scheme.
We lost our best DT because he didn't want to play in Bates scheme.

After the first 5 games we were giving up what, 200 yards rushing a game? Shanahan is the head coach, he did the best thing he could do for the team and that was to force Bates to step out.

If he would have done nothing, people would have faulted him for allowing Bates scheme to ruin our season. It was a lose, lose situation for him.

I am not much of a Shanahan supporter, but I don't blame him for taking over and trying to fix the problem Bates created. Yes it was Bates who created this miss. Even despite the fact Shanahan has neglected the D-line for way to long. it was Bates who got our best DT traded away, It was because of bates we brought in the worthless lard butts we had on the line.

TXBRONC
01-14-2008, 12:23 AM
Jr,, I am trying to see your point, and I agree with some of what you have said, but what was Shanahan to do?

If there is fault to be found with Shanahan, its that he brought Bates here in the first place. He had to know we didn't have the personnel for Bates scheme.
We lost our best DT because he didn't want to play in Bates scheme.

After the first 5 games we were giving up what, 200 yards rushing a game? Shanahan is the head coach, he did the best thing he could do for the team and that was to force Bates to step out.

If he would have done nothing, people would have faulted him for allowing Bates scheme to ruin our season. It was a lose, lose situation for him.

I am not much of a Shanahan supporter, but I don't blame him for taking over and trying to fix the problem Bates created. Yes it was Bates who created this miss. Even despite the fact Shanahan has neglected the D-line for way to long. it was Bates who got our best DT traded away, It was because of bates we brought in the worthless lard butts we had on the line.

Shanahan was going be taking heat for what was happening one way or the other. As the head coach he had to do something to try and rectify the situation.

mclark
01-14-2008, 06:10 PM
I'm pretty sure had Rice been good enough to start over Engleberger, he would have started over Engleberger. Obviously Shanahan though that Engleberger was better based on what he saw in practice. And based on the fact that he got cut from Indy, it just proves further how much he sucked this season.

I imagine Bates was making most of the decisions on who got the most playing time on his defense. Engelberger is a journeyman at best. He's never had half the skills of Rice, when he was healthy. Maybe Rice is finished. Maybe Bates didn't like him. Maybe Shanahan was trying to keep peace in the family. Who knows? Whatever the case, the decisions didn't really work very well for anyone. And if Rice was a vocal complainer in the locker room, then it's a good thing he's gone.

Skinny
01-14-2008, 06:14 PM
Rice played like he was coming off of knee surgery rather than shoulder surgery. He was out of shape and looked like he was playing in cement.

Engelburger had twice the motor IMO ...

Lonestar
01-14-2008, 09:02 PM
Jr,, I am trying to see your point, and I agree with some of what you have said, but what was Shanahan to do?

If there is fault to be found with Shanahan, its that he brought Bates here in the first place. He had to know we didn't have the personnel for Bates scheme.
We lost our best DT because he didn't want to play in Bates scheme.

After the first 5 games we were giving up what, 200 yards rushing a game? Shanahan is the head coach, he did the best thing he could do for the team and that was to force Bates to step out.

If he would have done nothing, people would have faulted him for allowing Bates scheme to ruin our season. It was a lose, lose situation for him.

I am not much of a Shanahan supporter, but I don't blame him for taking over and trying to fix the problem Bates created. Yes it was Bates who created this miss. Even despite the fact Shanahan has neglected the D-line for way to long. it was Bates who got our best DT traded away, It was because of bates we brought in the worthless lard butts we had on the line.

I really believe that bringing in Jim Bates was not so much his idea but a whisper in his ear from PAT.. Maybe I'm totally wrong here but Mikey does not concede power to anyone willing.. Yet Bates had the pedigree to make his choices on Defense. He had already made Slowik the DC, why would he have brought Bates in?

I think mikey saw it as a chance to make a stand, humor Pat have Slowik in between the Assistant Head Coach and the troops. Whether bates scheme is all that hard to understand or the players got the secret wink/nod from Slowik I do not know..

I think mikey expected the defense to be better but has since acknowledged that we will be BACK to a MORE blitzing defense next year..
I also think he thought he had all his ducks lined up on O, so a Little disconnect on D fora awhile could be lived with. Only to have that balloon deflated with injuries to Walker, Thenry, Hamilton, Nalen. By the BYE week he had to make a change.

fcspikeit
01-15-2008, 12:46 AM
I really believe that bringing in Jim Bates was not so much his idea but a whisper in his ear from PAT.. Maybe I'm totally wrong here but Mikey does not concede power to anyone willing.. Yet Bates had the pedigree to make his choices on Defense. He had already made Slowik the DC, why would he have brought Bates in?

I think mikey saw it as a chance to make a stand, humor Pat have Slowik in between the Assistant Head Coach and the troops. Whether bates scheme is all that hard to understand or the players got the secret wink/nod from Slowik I do not know..

I think mikey expected the defense to be better but has since acknowledged that we will be BACK to a MORE blitzing defense next year..
I also think he thought he had all his ducks lined up on O, so a Little disconnect on D fora awhile could be lived with. Only to have that balloon deflated with injuries to Walker, Thenry, Hamilton, Nalen. By the BYE week he had to make a change.


So you agree with the change?

The only way the conspiracy theory works is if Bates defense tanked, tanked to the point he could say, see PAT I told you so. If that was the case, Then Shanahan would have wanted to lose games to justify him taking back over the D. Thats a little hard to believe.

I believe, if our offence could have played better and we would have been winning more games, Shanahan probably wouldn't have made the switch. But who knows :whoknows:

I think Bates had lost control of the defense. It just looked like players were giving up and they didn't believe in his system. Once you lose the players like that it is impossible to get them back, JMO