Josh McDaniels ruining the Broncos from the inside out.

[av7]

Quote: Originally Posted by Antec

They didn't go 5-11 though. They went 8-8 while "rebuilding". You make it sound like trying to win games and rebuilding are different things. It's not like McDaniels inherited a playoff team and dismantled it. The Broncos haven't been in the playoffs since 2005. Obviously what they were doing for the last 4 years before he was there hasn't been working. If you expected him to take a non playoff team and turn them into a playoff team while making no changes, then I don't know what to say.

And to install completely new systems for both sides of the ball, an 8-8 year was a success no matter how you look at it.

The offensive line wasn't tailored to what McDaniels wants, big guys, but he still made it work with the smallish line that Denver has been known for in years past. The defense in no way was expected to ever play like they did, whether they were in 4-3 or 3-4 systems but to take essentially 4-3 staff and play fairly well in the 3-4 scheme, thats a success.

I don't understand what McDaniels is supposed to do, keep all the players Shanahan had despite them not fitting his scheme or a player not wanting to commit to the "team" philosophy? The 2 polarizing guys that have been dealt have had the ME attitude and with the new team, that doesn't fly. Its his team and as far as I've seen since he's been here, the majority of guys have bought into it and are behind him 100%.

As regulars know who frequent the Broncos thread, I'm not all positive about the future all the time. I thought they would go 7-9 at best last year and they bested that by a game. With another change at DC, I think 8-8 is to be expected for this year, imo.

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by da ThRONe

I thought we are talking about personailty and player that fit schemes and how easy it is to change at what levels. Franchise are limited as well as college programs. You only draft once a round for the most part and the majority of the franchise changing talent goes early. When trades are made unless that team is just looking to dump that player they want greater market vaule for the player and an unresticted free agent holds the same "power" as a top high school prospect.

No, we're talking about which level is more likely to have to "work with what they have" and that's college... for any team sport. If you focus on the 10-20 teams at the top of the food chain in college, then life is much better... and that can change. In the pros, organizations have the power to build how they see fit. They're not forced to just work with what they have. If they do that, it's a choice. I don't see how anything you just said goes against that. Even the free agents you mention only become free agents bc teams allow them to get to that point. Of course, it's not as black and white as this on either level but at the core, this is exactly how it's set up. You can't just say bc pro organizations are also limited, that automatically puts them on the same level as colleges... let alone below them in this regard.

Bringing this around to the topic, McDaniels has a vision of what kind of team he wants and what kind of players he wants on it. All he needs is an owner who is willing to allow him to build his team that way. That doesn't hold true in college, again unless we're talking about the top 10-20 programs... or programs are willing to be awful for the sake what they consider more important (like Ivy league and service teams).

Quote:

I thought I had already admitted I was wrong early on before I was right later on. I didnt feel the need to answer that.

You tried to spin it this way. If they needed to win more than 4, 5, 6 games for you to be wrong then you were just wrong. At the point that they reached 6-0 there still wasn't anyone saying they were going to win more than 8 or 9 games, so claiming that it wasn't going to happen then wasn't really saying much.

[da ThRONe]

Quote: Originally Posted by Antec

They didn't go 5-11 though. They went 8-8 while "rebuilding". You make it sound like trying to win games and rebuilding are different things. It's not like McDaniels inherited a playoff team and dismantled it. The Broncos haven't been in the playoffs since 2005. Obviously what they were doing for the last 4 years before he was there hasn't been working. If you expected him to take a non playoff team and turn them into a playoff team while making no changes, then I don't know what to say.

The 5-11 record was completely a hypothetical senario. Which you expect from "rebuilding". Not to mention the defense is was their strong suit and DC Nolan is gone.

[ProfessaPackMan]

So what makes you think it can't be their strong suit again? There have been plenty of times where Teams have made changes at the Coordinator Spot and kept things moving like clockwork like nothing ever happened.

[da ThRONe]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

No, we're talking about which level is more likely to have to "work with what they have" and that's college... for any team sport. If you focus on the 10-20 teams at the top of the food chain in college, then life is much better... and that can change. In the pros, organizations have the power to build how they see fit. They're not forced to just work with what they have. If they do that, it's a choice. I don't see how anything you just said goes against that. Even the free agents you mention only become free agents bc teams allow them to get to that point. Of course, it's not as black and white as this on either level but at the core, this is exactly how it's set up. You can't just say bc pro organizations are also limited, that automatically puts them on the same level as colleges... let alone below them in this regard. Bringing this around to the topic, McDaniels has a vision of what kind of team he wants and what kind of players he wants on it. All he needs is an owner who is willing to allow him to build his team that way. That doesn't hold true in college, again unless we're talking about the top 10-20 programs... or programs are willing to be awful for the sake what they consider more important (like Ivy league and service teams).

One maybe two years at the. Before you can cosistently start bringing in kids fit your scheme. Pros there no telling how long your stuck with them.

Look at the situation with Albert Haynesworth. They just gave him a kings randoms and now they have to try and force a trade because he doesnt fit the scheme. So there is a strong chance the Skins are stuck with him this season.

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

You tried to spin it this way. If they needed to win more than 4, 5, 6 games for you to be wrong then you were just wrong. At the point that they reached 6-0 there still wasn't anyone saying they were going to win more than 8 or 9 games, so claiming that it wasn't going to happen then wasn't really saying much.

I didnt try to spin anything. I thought they would be a bad team losing Culter and gaining Orton. The werent bad they were decent. But I know they werent playoff good and they didnt go.

[ProfessaPackMan]

Quote: Originally Posted by da ThRONe

One maybe two years at the. Before you can cosistently start bringing in kids fit your scheme. Pros there no telling how long your stuck with them. Look at the situation with Albert Haynesworth. They just gave him a kings randoms and now they have to try and force a trade because he doesnt fit the scheme. So there is a strong chance the Skins are stuck with him this season. I didnt try to spin anything. I thought they would be a bad team losing Culter and gaining Orton. The werent bad they were decent. But I know they werent playoff good and they didnt go.

1. Haynesworth actually fits the scheme the Skins are trying to run. HIS issue is that he doesn't want to play NT, where everybody and their mama knows he would dominate at.

2. So you're basically saying the Broncos were better than what you originally thought they were?

[da ThRONe]

Quote: Originally Posted by ProfessaPackMan

1. Haynesworth actually fits the scheme the Skins are trying to run. HIS issue is that he doesn't want to play NT, where everybody and their mama knows he would dominate at. 2. So you're basically saying the Broncos were better than what you originally thought they were?

1. This is debatable. I think he's better in the 4-3 were he can make plays instead of a 3-4 where he eats up blocks.

2. Yes. I have no problem admitting when I've been proving wrong. I dont know why everybody has this attitude like I believe Im never wrong. Just because our opinions defer on this topic.

[Antec]

Quote: Originally Posted by da ThRONe

I thought they would be a bad team losing Culter and gaining Orton. The werent bad they were decent. But I know they werent playoff good and they didnt go.

They weren't playoff good with Cutler. The last time they were playoff good was 5 years ago. Good prediction I guess?

Hey guys I don't think the Seahawks are playoff good next year. Mark it down.