PDA

View Full Version : According To PFW Bates Had Complete Autonomy



TXBRONC
01-12-2008, 02:51 PM
I read this article on Pro Football Weekly's website and found it interesting. I read the continuous knocks that Shanahan only likes yes (which is bunch crap until it could actually be proven) and the moves like Warren and Rice were Shanahan's doing well this article says differently. In other words Bates truly did hang himself.

http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/NFL/AFC/AFC+West/Denver/WWHI/2007/wwhi011108.htm

Players excited about promotion of Slowik as defensive boss

Jan. 11, 2008

Word out of Denver is that there weren’t many frowns on the faces of players when it was decided that Broncos assistant head coach/defense Jim Bates would resign on Tuesday, though such a reaction should be considered as much about defensive coordinator/DB coach Bob Slowik getting handed the keys to the defense as Bates parting ways with the team. Head coach Mike Shanahan had given Bates complete autonomy over the defense in his first and only year in Denver, but a lack of stability on the defensive line and the fact his system never took hold, despite several personnel moves he had desired (the signings of Sam Adams and Simeon Rice, the trade of Gerard Warren, etc.), led to his downfall. Assignment issues, primarily with gap control, and poor tackling were areas of concern as the Broncos ranked 30th in the league in rushing yards allowed and 28th in points given up, and more than a few players were said to be uncomfortable with his approach. In an interesting twist of fate, Slowik had been replaced by Bates as the Packers’ defensive coordinator after the 2004 season. Bates, who turned down an offer to stay on and coach the linebackers, was due close to $2.5 million over the next two years. Promoting Slowik, who has a close relationship with S John Lynch, CB Champ Bailey and others, saves the team some money and maintains some continuity.

Bronco9798
01-12-2008, 02:57 PM
No surprise there. It was obvious Bates was in control. Shanny trusted him and he failed. He had the opportunity to take that unit and do something, he failed miserably. His personnel decisions were disturbing and confusing at best.

TXBRONC
01-12-2008, 03:00 PM
No surprise there. It was obvious Bates was in control. Shanny trusted him and he failed. He had the opportunity to take that unit and do something, he failed miserably. His personnel decisions were disturbing and confusing at best.


Yeah I know it's not a surprise to many here. But the reason I didn't bring it up is because Shanahan has been criticized by a few that have said moves like trading Warren and bringing in Rice were all Shanahan's doing. If PFW has it right, then that argument is incorrect.

MileHighWrath
01-12-2008, 04:55 PM
It flys in direct contrast to the article where Rice calls Shanahan a liar for signing him as a starter. While Rice certainly bashes Bates it seemed that, according to Rice, it was Shanahan that hired him. Now, Rice is full of **** to be sure but the contradiction is worthy of note.

TXBRONC
01-12-2008, 05:10 PM
It flys in direct contrast to the article where Rice calls Shanahan a liar for signing him as a starter. While Rice certainly bashes Bates it seemed that, according to Rice, it was Shanahan that hired him. Now, Rice is full of **** to be sure but the contradiction is worthy of note.

Ultimately yes Shanahan signed, but what it boil down too is Bates telling Shanahan this is available let's sign if we can because he'll be a good fit for our defense.

Bronco9798
01-12-2008, 05:11 PM
Ultimately yes Shanahan signed, but what it boil down too is Bates telling Shanahan this is available let's sign if we can because he'll be a good fit for our defense.

Exacrly......

WARHORSE
01-12-2008, 05:35 PM
As I stated earlier, Shanny took control after about five games of getting the opponents runners stuck up our butts in fifth gear.

I think that where Shanny knew he should have won more games.


Greenbay? We should have won.

Jacksonville? We should have won.

Chicago? Ditto.

Oakland? Injury to Selvin with Henry already hurt, hurt us.

But thats a coaching decision.

TXBRONC
01-12-2008, 05:38 PM
As I stated earlier, Shanny took control after about five games of getting the opponents runners stuck up our butts in fifth gear.

I think that where Shanny knew he should have won more games.


Greenbay? We should have won.

Jacksonville? We should have won.

Chicago? Ditto.

Oakland? Injury to Selvin with Henry already hurt, hurt us.

But thats a coaching decision.

The Chicago game for sure I wouldn't lay at the feet of the defensive. The Special Teams units failed in that game.

WARHORSE
01-12-2008, 05:41 PM
The Chicago game for sure I wouldn't lay at the feet of the defensive. The Special Teams units failed in that game.


Ultimately, it falls to Shanny if they kicked to Hester.

TXBRONC
01-12-2008, 05:58 PM
Ultimately, it falls to Shanny if they kicked to Hester.

True but I don't think Shanahan wanted to kick to Hester.

The kickoff return is little harder to criticize because it's kick the ball away from the returner off a kicking tee.

SmilinAssasSin27
01-12-2008, 06:33 PM
The Chicago game for sure I wouldn't lay at the feet of the defensive. The Special Teams units failed in that game.

beat me to it.

SmilinAssasSin27
01-12-2008, 06:34 PM
I'm still pissed about the warren deal. That, to me, was the biggest head scratcher of em all. We keep him alongside Thomas, and we don't have the offseason hunting for the DT we already had. he may he been getting paid well, but he did the job in 2005 and was obviously fully recovered in 2007.

Lonestar
01-12-2008, 07:52 PM
He is my guess on what happened. Mikey dropped coyer and old friend after a long sad season..



Mikey has never brought in outsiders to position of importance unless He knew them from past jobs..

He knew Ray Rhodes beaus they were on I think the SFO staff together.. Ray was a good friend, defensive genius and a recently fired HC from Philly.

But their were problems with Rays personal live I believe I just heard the other day. He did not get the job done but he was also not used to working for mikey and I believe Mikey was not comfortable not having total control..

I think mikey decided to give the HC job to Slowik after pressure from above..Mikey subsequently hired Jim Bates at the suggestion of Pat perhaps it was Pat whispering in his ear about coyer not working.

I don not believe that mikey having the Ray experience in the past wanted to turn over total control or make Biggie draft choices on D. But bringing him is a a an assistant HC for D still had his boy between Bates and the players..

Bob has been here an extra year is promoted and now has another boss instead of reporting directly to mikey.. HMMMMM

I have to wonder how much sabotage of Bates scheme might have been done knowing he was within a hairs breath away from a real HC job somewhere, if this D turn a lousy season 2006 around.. Now he has a scapegoat if something goes south and the players get the drift about "not picking up the scheme". Players love Slowik but know Bate is a great coach, but since things are not going great by bye week Bob is whispering in mikeys ear that Bate is not the genius that Pat thought.

Well
I think there is more to this story than meets the eye.. Wonder if anyone will talk about it?

TXBRONC
01-12-2008, 07:59 PM
He is my guess on what happened. Mikey dropped coyer and old friend after a long sad season..



Mikey has never brought in outsiders to position of importance unless He knew them from past jobs..

He knew Ray Rhodes beaus they were on I think the SFO staff together.. Ray was a good friend, defensive genius and a recently fired HC from Philly.

But their were problems with Rays personal live I believe I just heard the other day. He did not get the job done but he was also not used to working for mikey and I believe Mikey was not comfortable not having total control..

I think mikey decided to give the HC job to Slowik after pressure from above..Mikey subsequently hired Jim Bates at the suggestion of Pat perhaps it was Pat whispering in his ear about coyer not working.

I don not believe that mikey having the Ray experience in the past wanted to turn over total control or make Biggie draft choices on D. But bringing him is a a an assistant HC for D still had his boy between Bates and the players..

Bob has been here an extra year is promoted and now has another boss instead of reporting directly to mikey.. HMMMMM

I have to wonder how much sabotage of Bates scheme might have been done knowing he was within a hairs breath away from a real HC job somewhere, if this D turn a lousy season 2006 around.. Now he has a scapegoat if something goes south and the players get the drift about "not picking up the scheme". Players love Slowik but know Bate is a great coach, but since things are not going great by bye week Bob is whispering in mikeys ear that Bate is not the genius that Pat thought.

Well
I think there is more to this story than meets the eye.. Wonder if anyone will talk about it?

Jr I you think you're a great devil's advocate, but this post of yours was a waste of good bandwidth.

By the way this thread is about Bates not Shanahan.

EMB6903
01-12-2008, 08:09 PM
lol, JR, what in the hell are you talking about?? always has to come down to "mikey" are you his ex wife or something?

TXBRONC
01-12-2008, 09:07 PM
lol, JR, what in the hell are you talking about?? always has to come down to "mikey" are you his ex wife or something?

The bottom line according to the article is that Bates did have total autonomy when it came to the defense.

Bronco9798
01-12-2008, 09:09 PM
The bottom line according to the article is that Bates did have total autonomy when it came to the defense.

That's not the only article either. Both the post and news had it.

TXBRONC
01-12-2008, 09:34 PM
That's not the only article either. Both the post and news had it.

I'm sure both of those new papers did unfortunately I didn't have those handy.

omac
01-12-2008, 10:05 PM
The bottom line according to the article is that Bates did have total autonomy when it came to the defense.

Yes, that is the bottom line that was reported; anything else is pure speculation. Just like assuming any bad move is from Shanny, and any good move is not. :D

TXBRONC
01-13-2008, 12:34 AM
Yes, that is the bottom line that was reported; anything else is pure speculation. Just like assuming any bad move is from Shanny, and any good move is not. :D


Yep...