Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

printable version

Extra Points

Articles from around the Web



30 Dec 2008

Broncos Fire Shanahan

Well, that came out of nowhere. The Broncos have let Mike Shanahan go after their second-half collapse.

Posted by: Bill Barnwell on 30 Dec 2008

183 comments, Last at 05 Jan 2009, 1:11pm by Rich Conley

Comments

1
by el plaga :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 6:55pm

This now makes herm edwards the dean of afc west head coaches!

124
by Snowglare :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 12:24pm

*cries*

2
by lionsbob :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 6:56pm

So what would the reason for the firing? That the team had stagnated under Shanahan or something like that?

3
by ChrisH :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 7:04pm

ESPN just showed the numbers, and his winning percentage was around 56% with only 1 division title since Elway left a decade ago. He wasn't good in the draft and as a GM, though, and that might have cost him more in the end.

43
by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 10:00pm

People do realize that it's impossible for all teams in the NFL to maintain a winning percentage above 0.500 long-term, right?

A coach with a 56% winning percentage is above-average. By definition. If I were the Browns, Lions, or Jets, I would be on the phone with Mike Shanahan right now.

44
by John Doe (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 10:08pm

A coach who had some great seasons with extremely talented players. He than became a GM/Coach who could not build a successful team. The thinking is probably that he's had long enough to build a winner, and isn't cut out to have full authority.

51
by RickD :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 10:34pm

And in particular, the longer he's had full control, the worse the defense has gotten.

Shanahan should certainly get another job, but whoever hires him needs to ensure somebody else is making the personnel decisions and somebody else is in charge of the defense.

58
by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 10:45pm

He than became a GM/Coach who could not build a successful team.

I must've imagined the 13-3 season in 2005, then? Or the 10-6 season in 2004? Or is this some strange other definition of "successful" I don't understand? One that doesn't involve wins?

Oh, wait. You're going to bring up playoff wins. I mean, anyone can win in the playoffs, right? And those teams that Shanahan lost to: I mean, they're crap, right? The 2000 Super Bowl champion Baltimore Ravens, the 12-4 2003 Indianapolis Colts, the 12-4 2004 Indianapolis Colts, the Super Bowl champion 2005 Pittsburgh Steelers: all total crap.

Firing Shanahan makes about as much sense as it would've to fire Bill Cowher in 2003. Clearly, a guy who builds a 13-3 team which loses to the Super Bowl champions in the AFC Championship Game is incapable of building a successful team.

183
by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Mon, 01/05/2009 - 1:11pm

He's been above average over a 10+ year period. That doesn't mean hes above average now. Talents do decline.

4
by Pio (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 7:04pm

oh jesus this is dumb. Really, we've had 3 average seasons (9-7, 7-9, 8-8) after going to the AFC championship game and we're firing him? The man with 2 losing seasons in 11-odd years? And who on earth are we gonna get thats better??

6
by tally :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 7:06pm

Looks like the Broncos are putting their name in the Bill Cowher sweepstakes.

33
by Megamanic (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 9:09pm

Marty Schottenheimer!!!

69
by ThunderThumbs (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 11:54pm

God that would be so awesome. That would be like... the opposite of poetic.

71
by Megamanic (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 11:58pm

And Schotty would get the chance to stick it to Al Davis AND AJ Smith twice a year. If anything gets Schotty back in the saddle it's this. Also Schottenheimer's strength is defense, boy do Denver need help there. As a Chargers fan this would be a nightmare scenario so I hope it doesn't happen...

84
by Shattenjager :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 12:42am

I am a Denver fan. I have rooted for the ouster of Shanahan from his GM role (whatever his official title was) for years. The thought of Marty Schottenheimer makes me want him back. Now. On a lifetime contract.

Schottenheimer in Denver is the most evil idea in history.

I'm going to go throw up now.

45
by Whodunit (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 10:29pm

3 average seasons after the AFC championship game... But who decided to blow up that team and rebuild it? Yep, it was Shanny.

60
by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 10:50pm

And now you've got one of the best young quarterbacks in the league, one of the better young wide receivers in the league. The only problem's the defense - which happens to be the one part of the team that you can fix the fastest. Yeah, what a terrible idea that was.

5
by JR (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 7:06pm

I suppose that if you can't win one of the Western divisions, you should get fired. Linehan, Kiffin, Nolan didn't finish the season. Holmgren retired and now this. I don't think that Herm Edwards can feel good about his job security right now.

It will be interesting to see who ends up where. I can only assume that Mangini, Shanahan, and Cowher will be able to get HC jobs if they want them.

26
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 8:39pm

Neither can Tom Cable and Norv Turner... 7 coaches in 2 divisions would be insane!

52
by RickD :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 10:36pm

Let's see how Norv does against the Colts. I would think a win there would ensure he kept his job. Certainly two wins in the playoffs and he'd be safe. Nobody fires a coach whose made the conference championship game two years in a row.

89
by socctty (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 12:53am

It's the same crew that fired a coach after he went 14-2.

156
by Richard :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 8:09pm

He was fired for disobeying the owner during the off-season, not for going 14-2. Had he not intentionally gotten himself fired, he would not have been fired.

7
by Harris :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 7:07pm

And Al Davis leaps for the phone. Well, kind of shuffled in the general direction of the phone, wandered around the room a few times, called for a glass of warm milk and fell asleep watching a rerun of "Matlock."

"A little celery is always nice after a good pee."

47
by Whodunit (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 10:31pm

No love lost between Shanny and Davis, to be sure.

"A bit of brocolli is always nice after taking a big Harris."

(See, other people can have stupid taglines, too!)

119
by Harris :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 9:45am

Aaaaand your point is what, exactly?

"A little celery is always nice after a good pee."

181
by Not whodunit (not verified) :: Sat, 01/03/2009 - 12:19pm

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say his problem is being sick of reading that line every. single. time. you. post. As am I, and undoubtedly a bunch of other regular readers. For the love of Lombardi, give that goddamn line a rest.

8
by Tom Gower :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 7:08pm

Wow, I'm completely shocked. I thought Shanahan was absolutely, 100% bulletproof. He would've been on my top 5 job security list.

55
by RickD :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 10:40pm

Hmmm...my top 5 list
Belichick
Dungy
Fisher
Coughlin
Fox
and Tomlin for good luck.

and that doesn't include first-years Sparano, Harbaugh, and Mike Smith.

Shanahan certainly hasn't achieved as much in recent years as the top 5.

136
by Anonymous Too! (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 2:38pm

What has Fisher achieved in the last 5 years? Home field advantage this year?

9
by Richie :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 7:08pm

So much for my comment yesterday about Shanahan being able to keep the job as long as he wants. I am shocked.

118
by zlionsfan :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 9:35am

You were thinking reasonably. I was pretending to be an owner who couldn't remember anything before the current season.

10
by discodack (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 7:11pm

fantasy owners commence into rejoice

160
by Snowglare :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 9:40pm

That's one way of looking at it. Assuming Shanahan doesn't latch on elsewhere (though I don't know how he couldn't), Belichick will be the uncontested bane of fantasy owners.

I'd like to see him land on a team with a dependable feature back. Denver have been crazy with the shuffling in recent years, but with their O-line and the quality of their backs, they've had good reason. If he went to Detroit or Cleveland, we'd likely see more of the same, along with a heavy emphasis on the passing game. With the Jets or, perhaps, the Cowboys, their backups are good enough for a committee, but their starters are good enough that it's hard not to play them.

All I'm sure of is that if Shanahan'd coached Atlanta this year, Turner wouldn't have hit 370 while Norwood was limited to 95 carries (and 36 catches, which was a career high). I wonder if he'll be useless next year, or if being so young and underused will insulate him. I'm not taking the chance in fantasy, but I hope for his and the Falcons' case that I'm wrong.

11
by Tim Kirk (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 7:14pm

I wonder if Shanahan refused to step down from GM position... that is the only thing I can think of that might cause problems, Bowden and Shanahan seemed to get on, but ego can always cause trouble.

Also wonder if Broncos can find a coach who will leave the offensive side of things the same - in particular keep Dennison on the OL coaching position and Turner on the running backs : I feel you can keep a considerable amount of the Broncos offensive style with some continuity there (and the offense doesn't need fixing). I guess that this is also is an ego thing.

28
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 8:45pm

I certainly hope they can.

Allthough a young talented offense (good all-round) is dangerous. A new guy might force a new scheme with this much talent at hand.

Therefore i would advocate a defensive minded coach (Steve Spagnoulo?) - a guy that will leave the offense alone (playcalling duties was handed over to Jim Bates this offseason) and attend to the defense.

This basically means Bob Slowik (DC) is done also.

God i hope he retires or, at least, moves out of the conference... Imagine him taking over in KC.. Shivers down the spine!

38
by Dennis :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 9:39pm

According to Adam Schefter - who is a total Broncos homer but he does know what's going on with the team - Shanahan letting the GM duties go was never considered. Bowlen just let him go.

12
by Charger Jeff (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 7:16pm

If I had told you at the beginning of the season that Norv Turner had more job security than Mike Shanahan, I might have been banned from the site.

40
by Jerry :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 9:48pm

And if you'd said it four weeks ago, you'd have been carted away.

13
by Joe T. (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 7:18pm

I think the Cowher sweepstakes has just become the Shanahan sweepstakes. With both these guys on the market I suspect other coaches are going to feel some heat.

76
by RickD :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 12:10am

Or, in Dick Jauron's case, the cold.

14
by hector :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 7:19pm

This looks like a gigantic mistake, unless Pat Bowlen feels good about adding someone like Cowher. Shanahan's resume speaks for itself, and remember, Elway's true potential wasn't realized until he worked with Shanahan's scheme. If Shanahan never coached again, I'd argue he's still a Hall of Famer.

25
by Richie :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 8:37pm

Good point. For the first 10+ years of his career, Elway was considered a loser who couldn't win the big game. Maybe it was Shanahan who finally got him over the top.

86
by Shattenjager :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 12:49am

Or Terrell Davis and a decent defense. Not to mention the absence of Dan Reeves.

102
by hector :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 2:14am

Obviously Shanahan had a lot of good players on those Super Bowl teams. You can't win without them. But coaches who are able to consistently win - and even compete during down seasons - in this reshuffle league deserve our respect. Mike Shanahan is one of the best coaches of our generation, and I say that having no emotional stake in the Broncos whatsoever.

111
by Scott C :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 6:20am

I think you're forgetting:

A very good Denver Defense +
One of the great all-time offensive lines + a great RB.

Shanahan didn't make Elway any better -- he just had a lot more to work with -- and used those complementary elements well.

Seriously, everyone assigns blame for every up and down a team has in the playoffs due to the QB (or HC even) ... is so irrational.

A QB can throw 3 INT's in a playoff game, the Defense and special teams can hold the fort down, and then if in the 4th quarter the QB leads a 20 yard drive to get in field goal range for a kick to win he's a hero, and 'clutch' (and the kicker, who missed a FG earlier).

But if he has a great game throwing 3 TD's no INT's and 400 yards, but the defense and special teams stink it up and the team is behind, and in the end of the 4th quarter he throws an INT on 4th down and long, he is a goat and 'cant win the big one'.

Elway pre-97, Marino, Manning pre-06, Brees (and a big list of others) --- these guys often end up in the second bucket because of their teammates failing them.
Not that they didn't have bad games, just that all the good ones, and the ratio of good to bad were overlooked almost entirely.

Most people don't remember the HORRIBLE games that Montana and Rice had in some of their playoff losses. After three consecutive one and done playoff exits and bad performances from the star players in '87, the press and many fans were calling for Walsh to be fired, and weren't so happy with Montana's playoff performance...

The truth is, when you look at the stats, most QB's and coaches have their teams perform roughly as well, with roughly the same variation in performance, in the playoffs and the regular season. Montana and Brady "clutch" qbs, don't statistically play significantly better in the post season as the regular season, and QB's who "can't win the big one" have similar trends relative to their regular season performance.

Its really not all that different than the baseball 'clutch hitter' myth, where Reggie Jackson, "Mr. October" didn't play any better in the post season, he just had the luck of striking out in early innings, and homering in late ones rather than vice-versa, in a small sample of close games.

31
by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 9:06pm

"Shanahan's resume speaks for itself, "

At one point, the same could be said about Al Davis. The game is always changing, and maybe the owner feels Shanahan is past his prime.

90
by Shattenjager :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 12:55am

While he was not the head coach, Shanahan worked with Elway as quarterbacks coach Elway's second and third seasons in the league and offensive coordinator for the next two. I tend to be rather irrational about John Elway (who carried the team to three Super Bowls on his back when his "true potential wasn't realized," by the way), but I think it defies logic to say that "Shanahan's scheme" did not exist in his earlier tour with Denver but was the reason for the team's success in his later tour.

Apologies if that sounds really angry/nasty. I already said I get irrational about Elway!

112
by Scott C :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 6:44am

Absolutely! I'm a Charger fan, with no love for the Donkeys, but the irrational "Elway wasn't any good until Shanahan showed up" crap pisses me off not because of the team, but because its basically ignoring the fact that the freaking game is a TEAM sport, and the QB doesn't have a lot to do with the defense or special teams, or the offensive line's ability to block, or ...

Well just read my overly long diatribe in the other post above. Or this one.

Elway was a tough competitor and hard for the Chargers to beat for a very long time. Winning the Super Bowl was a result of combining that with a lot of other elements, not do to a change in his capability.

After all, does Trent Dilfer's SB victory make him a better QB than Dan Marino, Jim Kelly, or Fran Tarkenton? Hell no! And Terry Bradshaw's collection of them doesn't mean much either -- I think the Steel Curtain defense had a lot more to do with those than some sort of magical ability for him to 'win the ones that count'.

No QB has EVER been able to transcend a crappy collection of teammates and 'will' a SB, let alone a single playoff win. I don't care who you think the best QB is in history -- take the best qualities of each:
Take Marino's pocket presence and quick release, combine it with Brady's ability to make quick decisions, Favre's mid range arm strength and Fouts' long range arm. Bolt on some Montana accuracy and Steve Young's early years mobility.... Then make them impossible to injure for more than 10 minutes of game time.
Put the SuperQB on Detroit this year. Maybe they win 4 games.

But if you take the 2006 Bears Special Teams, the 2000 Ravens Defense, and the 2003 Chiefs offense with the 2003 Colts WR's. then stick in the worst QB you can think of that played in the NFL this year.... They would be SB contenders.

126
by MJK :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 12:51pm

Put the SuperQB

I think the correct term is ROBO-Quarterback.

then stick in the worst QB you can think of that played in the NFL this year

I think Orlovsky would still run out the back of the end zone.

170
by jimbohead :: Thu, 01/01/2009 - 6:18pm

was orlovsky really the worst? I mean, he has stiff competition from the JT O'Sullivan experience, not to mention a Rex Grossman appearance...

clearly, this website needs an irrational "worst QB of '08" thread.

15
by Charger Jeff (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 7:21pm

He might be a hall of famer, but he only has like 3 playoff wins since Elway retired, so it's a 2 way street. It's a fact that that team has eroded badly over the past 10 years, and especially in the last 5.

17
by Love is like a bottle of gin (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 7:38pm

You clearly do not realize how difficult it is to stay on top in the NFL. Teams eroding badly over 2 or 3 years is the norm, eroding over 10 is hall of fame performance.

Anyway someone will hire him if he wants to work right away, and Denver will have a worse coach than him next year almost assuredly.

65
by Phoenix of Fury :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 11:13pm

The team has eroded from the halycon days of Elway, yes. But can you think of a single season where the Broncos were DEFINITELY out of the running? 3 average seasons in 14 years isn't bad.

91
by Shattenjager :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 12:57am

1-4 in the postseason since Elway's retirement, just to clarify.

From now on, I will read further ahead before posting. Apologies, Charger Jeff.

16
by Charger Jeff (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 7:34pm

Ooops ... my bad, he only has 1 playoff win without Elway.

77
by RickD :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 12:13am

Exactly. And that's the biggest problem.

113
by Scott C :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 6:53am

Small sample size. 1-4 isn't much different than 2-4 or 3-4, statistically speaking.
The "since Elway" argument is a bunch of BS too.
What was important is the "Since the bulk of the team that won two SB's left" part. They had Elway for almost 20 years. They won later because the rushing offense was amazingly good, and the defense was very good.

Shannahan has failed to acquire enough talent to win at the level he did early on. The drop in team quality has little to do with Elway, not a lot more than the other 30 or so guys critical to those SB teams that are no longer on the team, at least.
Unless someone wants to stand up and tell me they'd be SB champs this year if only Elway was alive, with the crappy defense and ineffective running game they had this year (um... reminds me of many a 80's and 90's Elway broncos non-playoff team...).

157
by Bronco Jeff :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 8:28pm

If by ineffective running game you mean ranked 4th in DVOA (better than the passing game) despite all of the hardships we faced, then yes, it was sure ineffective. It was the defense and turnovers that did in the Broncos, not the running game.

18
by Tom Nawrocki (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 7:39pm

He might be a hall of famer, but he only has like 3 playoff wins since Elway retired,

One. The Broncos have won one playoff game since John Elway retired ten years ago.

I just hope this means Shanahan stops doing those annoying jewlery-store radio commercials.

50
by Whodunit (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 10:34pm

I will miss the jewelry commercials. He is the most wooden spokesman possibly in the history of radio!

19
by Charger Jeff (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 7:41pm

I clearly don't understand what it takes to stay on top? Dude is barely over .500 since 1998 - how is that being on top, never mind staying there?

67
by deflated (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 11:20pm

At worst his teams were slightly below average, in a good year they were excellent. During his tenure he bottomed out at 6-10, had two other losing seasons. He also has 7 10+ win seasons, the most recent just back in 2005. He had managed to retool his offense at least three times, each time taking it to a top 5 ranking behind a monotonously effective running game.

In the same period the Chargers - not a historically horrible franchise, you'll know the numbers - have had 5 seasons with more losses than Shanahan's worst season in Denver. They have only had 3 seasons with 10+ wins, despite the presence of some outstanding players like LDT, Seau, Harrison, O'Neal, Brees, Rivers, Gates, Merriman. If you don't like this comparison feel free to use the Cowboys, Niners or Packers, all at the top around the Broncos SB years.

Always an offensive coach first, all his starting QBs went to the Pro Bowl and he proved the 'fungible RB' argument all on his own. Some of his teams were surprisingly good on D - 2004, 2005 were top 10 defences - but we forgot those years after a debacle like 2008. He proved able to produce bucketloads of points with wildly different players - Elway vs Griese vs Plummer vs Cutler, Davis or Anderson at RB, Smith/McCaffery vs Smith/Lelie vs Marshall/Royal.

Anyone can get lucky with some draft picks and a soft schedule and get one or two 10+ win seasons before falling back to doormat status. Shanahan has all but averaged 10 wins over 14 seasons and that is the record of an elite coach.

73
by MC2 :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 12:01am

Shanahan has all but averaged 10 wins over 14 seasons and that is the record of an elite coach.

Not necessarily. Denny Green averaged 9.7 wins over his 10 years in Minnesota, but that didn't stop him from falling flat on his face in Arizona. I'm not saying that will happen to Shanahan wherever he winds up next, but there's no guarantee that it won't, either.

92
by Shattenjager :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 12:59am

When Denny Green left Arizona, I wanted Denver to fire Shanahan and hire him.

. . .

I hated Shanahan more than I realized.

114
by Scott C :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 7:00am

Wait, now are you going to tell me that Green failed the great Arizona wealth of talent?
No coach could have done much with Arizona's offensive line that year, without dynamite.

Horrible example, IMO. Try someone with a decent record, then compare on another team with more than a 1 year sample size.

Shanahan has definitely failed to keep good talent on Defense, and did not use the salary cap wisely on that side of the ball. He has also failed to get a good D coordinator replacement lately. But as far as coaching goes in the long run, its a rather good resume. I wouldn't want him making personnel decisions on the defensive side at all though.

151
by MC2 :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 5:59pm

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I'm not claiming that Green was a bad coach; in fact, I actually think he's somewhat underrated.

I'm just saying that it's erroneous to assume that Shanahan's impressive record with the Broncos is indisputable evidence that he's a football genius who's guaranteed to have success wherever he goes next.

By the way, Green coached the Cardinals for 3 years, not 1 year.

20
by MarkV :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 8:00pm

RE the whole how good is shannahan mess.

Bill Bellicheck is a huge loser if you discount seasons with Tom Brady.

Tony Dungy isn't particularly special if you exclude games Peyton Manning has Played.

Under Shanahan the brongers were never worse than 6-10 and only had 2 losing seasons. Its the NFL, and over 20 years its almost impossible to do that... Cowher did similar with 2 6-10 seasons, Fisher has had worse seasons, Belicheck has had much worse seasons (and more frequently) etc.

Take any head coach, remove his seasons with a HoF quaterback, and see what record he posts. Almost no one does particularly well while maintaining a large sample size.

23
by JR (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 8:30pm

You beat me to it, MarkV. It is pretty silly to play the "if you exclude one of the greatest 3-year runs in the history of the league, he's barely over .500" game. How many coaches have had a run like the 1996-98 Broncos and how many coaches could even clear .500 if you took away their best 3 year stretch? Among active coaches, Dungy and Belichick have (even if Dungy only has 1 SB). Andy Reid can clear .500 without his best 3 years. I am pretty sure that's it.

34
by Dales :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 9:11pm

Dungy was 12 games over 500 over six seasons with the Bucs (9-7 record average), having taken over a franchise that had 13 straight losing seasons leading into his tenure.

Dungy has been special excluding games Peyton Manning has played. He's been remarkably special since, and yes Peyton deserves all of the accolades he gets, but Dungy should not be just an afterthought in the minds of people.

42
by lawfirm_ellis (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 9:59pm

As someone up above noted, this same argument could be used for Al Davis and plenty of other washed-up NFL coaches, owners, personnel guys, etc. Wins are certainly an imperfect method of measuring a coach's abilities- I'm still waiting for Football Outsiders to roll out DVOA for coaches and coordinators- but the whole argument that a coach used to be great, he's just going through a bad spell I think is shoddy. Mental attributes fade in the same way that physical attributes do, and I think it's just as possible for a coach to lose their mental edge as a player can lose his physical edge, with age. The fact that Shanahan did well a decade ago is really just not relevant to his performance today- would you like your favorite team to sign Favre on the argument that he was good, a decade ago?
Also, I think part of the argument for firing Shanahan is that his work as a GM and his personnel decisions were awful. Maybe he would have done well if he was relieved of those duties and was just a head coach, but he might not have agreed to this demotion, especially after a long reign of being hailed as a 'genius' in Denver.

115
by Scott C :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 7:24am

Coaches with extremely long streaks of success, record wise?
Schottenheimer. Incredible regular season overall record, hardly ever had a great QB. 2 losing seasons, 11 10+ win seasons, out of 21 total, with a 0.613 win percentage. Teams consistently out-played their perceived talent level.
Some really bad playoff luck though.... the fumble, the post-2006 McCree 'immaculate interception'.

My Schottenheimer theory:
I almost think that he has some sort of ability to motivate a team to play at near their peak (almost) every regular season game, while all other coaches can only do that a few times a year and in the playoffs. So, going into the playoffs, his teams tend to be among the most consistent (a fact supported by DVOA).
But other teams 'step up' in the post season, and his have been on the highest step all season with no more stairs to step up on, all their cards on the table.
That, and no good fortune in the playoffs. No tuck play to save the day, no long field goals made, no music city miracle, fumbles bouncing in unlucky directions...

152
by MC2 :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 6:06pm

I once had a similar theory about Dan Reeves, another guy who seemed to always get his teams to overachieve in the regular season, then come up short in the playoffs (or at least in the Super Bowl).

21
by Tim Kirk (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 8:18pm

According to 'league sources' mentioned in a Rocky Mountain News (see link in my name) Shanahan wanted to keep Slowik as DC.

22
by BroncoFrank (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 8:23pm

Thank fucking god.

24
by Chris (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 8:34pm

This reminds me of when AJ Smith/ Marty ball had their fall out and Marty was kicked out of town when he didn't deserve it ( althought he had just finished off a monster season).

Best NFL head coaches
- Bellicheck
- Jeff Fischer
- Shannihan

Best available
- If Parcells ever came back, he's #1
- Marty ball
- Dick Vermiel
- Cower is getting a lot of hype and certainly isn't as good as the above 3.

35
by Dales :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 9:15pm

I agree with your top 2 current coachs, but I would definitely put both Coughlin and Dungy ahead of Shannahan. Both of those have had more success and consistent success over comparably long timeframes with two different teams. Shannahan was nothing special with the Raiders and while I would say a success in Denver, not as much as those other two have had (even counting the two SB wins to Coughlin's and Dungy's one each).

57
by MC2 :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 10:42pm

I would also add John Fox to the list. He reminds me of Fisher. I never expect the Titans or the Panthers to be as good as they are, but they just keep on proving me wrong.

117
by Dales :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 7:37am

I forgot about Fox when typing that, and he's up there. Not sure if I put him on the same level as Coughlin or Dungy (both get credit, in my eyes, for doing it with two different organizations). But you draw an interesting parallel with the Titans.

27
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 8:44pm

The chance that they will get someone better than Shanahan are pretty slim. I will say that Shanahan might have had too much personnel power, and he would not be the first excellent coach to be in that position.

If Ted Cotrell gets hired as the new defensive coordinator, God is indeed dead.

62
by rageon (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 11:02pm

As a Broncos fan, my first thoughts were pretty much, "well, I'm sure it's because he's a terrible GM....but who are they going to get that will make them any better next year?"

I just can't believe the firing was over a DC. Not Shanahan and not with $20M left on the contract. I've gotta think there's something related to him not being willing to step aside gracefully as to personnel decisions.

29
by ThunderThumbs (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 8:46pm

This seems like the right time to get rid of him. You can tell by what coaches are willing to take accountability for. Each week he was saying, "We had the opportunity to get it done, and we didn't get it done," without any real evidence of soul-searching or changes. The only things they did this year was a brief experiment into 3-4 (unclear to me whether or not they should have stuck with it), and when they started practicing with pads again. The latter was a good move, but I was surprised they hadn't started doing it beforehand.

But the biggest thing was Shanahan's unwillingness to look at this as a defensive personnel problem. Specifically, the problem in picking and developing personnel. I am not sure if they are picking bad draft candidates, or just developing them badly.

I suspect it's more about developing them badly. Overall Shanahan seems weirdly risk-averse and despite his offensive flash, I think he started playing not to lose. Over these last two years I was stunned to see so much evidence of that in his play calling. So many occasions of goal-to-go where they didn't aim for the end zone, or third-and-long where they didn't aim for the first down marker. And I think that's part of why his high defensive draft picks were on the inactive list for so long - he just didn't want to take the short term lumps of getting them over the hump and into the flow of the game.

I think it's quite possible that a defensively-minded coach could come in and make something of Crowder/Moss/Thomas, and plug in a couple more holes besides. And at any rate, the team is so stuck in a culture of being scared of things going south again, that it seems just about impossible for the team not to get a short-term benefit out of the coaching change. Shanahan wouldn't have been able to shake things up for his team, and that's what they needed more than anything.

It's the right move.

30
by Charger Jeff (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 9:06pm

I'm not saying that Shanahan is a bad coach. I said in an earlier post that he's a HOFer. To more thoroughly suss out my point, it doesn't seem that he's developed talent and groomed a team to take the next step since Elway retired. I'll totally cop to the idea that Elway wouldn't have gotten there without Shanahan or someone equally talented as an OC/HC. But the flip side of that coin is that Shanahan hasn't lived up to his hype for most of the last decade, and equally important in coaching is development of the talent along with drafting the right guys to fill holes - especially in Shanahan's case, since his authority mostly superceded that of the GM when there was one.

Bottom line, IMO, is that he's a good coach who got stale by staying in one place too long and started believing his press clippings too much.

48
by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 10:32pm

it doesn't seem that he's developed talent and groomed a team to take the next step

Hasn't developed talent to take the next step? He's built multiple championship-level offenses, and a few top-10 defenses as well. Since Elway.

Shanahan's biggest problem was that he had very good teams in an era where the AFC had disproportionately many "very good" teams. The Broncos in 2004 were a very, very good team. Unfortunately, half the other teams in the AFC were very good that year, too. The Broncos in 2005 were a very, very good team. Unfortunately, there were still a ton of very good teams in the AFC that year, too.

Firing Shanahan's whackjob nuts. He's clearly capable of building a championship-caliber team. He's got a championship caliber offense now. A few years ago he had a top-10 defense. The idea that he can't develop top-end talent is crazy.

70
by Charger Jeff (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 11:56pm

'He's built multiple championship-level offenses, and a few top-10 defenses as well. Since Elway.'

You're not really referring to anything since Portis was traded away, right? Because the only thing he's done right on offense is bring in Plummer and draft Cutler and Royal. He got VERY lucky on Marshall, and has been deficient at RB. Frankly, I believe that his biggest fault as talent evaluator, even worse than the defensive gaffes, has been his utter lack of ability to draft a bell cow RB. Sure his system procudes 1k runners, but the system does NOT dominate. The defense blows, but equally important has been the lack of a dominant RB since Portis was traded. That's what I mean by believing his press clippings - insert RB here for 1k runs and whatnot.

83
by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 12:38am

You're not really referring to anything since Portis was traded away, right?

Yes, I am. This year. That's a championship-level offense paired with a godawful defense.

Because the only thing he's done right on offense is bring in Plummer and draft Cutler and Royal. He got VERY lucky on Marshall, and has been deficient at RB.

So, in other words, you're saying that the only thing he's done is find solid/great players at the most important position on offense, twice, plus grabbed solid/great players at WR (another high-value position), and neglected the most fungible position on offense. Man, how horrible!

Shanahan could have done nothing except draft Cutler for the past 3 years, and that's still a solid start.

The defense blows,

The defense was a top-10 unit in 2004 and 2005. They've struggled in the past three years, sure, but Shanahan's perfectly capable of assembling a solid enough defense for a championship.

85
by Charger Jeff (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 12:45am

There is absolutely no way you can call this year's offense championship level. This is exactly the same offense with which Reeves took Elway to Super Bowls and got embarrassed.

95
by Shattenjager :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 1:07am

No.

Dan Reeves Denver offense: Off-tackle left, off-tackle right, incomplete pass, punt. (I will credit my grandfather for inventing this description. That's how I learned what an off-tackle run was.)

Mike Shanahan '08 offense: Complete bomb left, (shotgun) incomplete bomb right, (shotgun) incomplete bomb right, (shotgun) Cutler scramble for first down, interception bomb left.

Glad as I am to see Shanahan go, he is an incredible offensive mind, a description that could NEVER apply to Dan Reeves.

88
by Charger Jeff (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 12:52am

'Shanahan could have done nothing except draft Cutler for the past 3 years, and that's still a solid start.'

Except that he shouldn't be starting, so much - he's a genius, he should be in the playoffs every year.

Kool-Aid isn't food, man.

(dear god, my captcha anti-spam word is 'hillery valve' - yikes!)

98
by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 1:27am

He's not a genius. He's an above-average coach/GM. Geniuses can lose half their secondary and plug in a WR at DB and still have a decent defense. Above average guys have to suffer through a few down years so that the bonus talent from high draft picks pulls you back into contention.

Fans of teams who have above-average coaches/GMs know this pattern. Ditching an above-average guy in hopes of getting a genius is how you end up with Rich Kotite.

103
by greybeard (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 2:35am

A lot of people would not call most of the tenured professors geniuses. Lots of Nobel prize winners are not considered geniuses, but a football coach is easily called genius.

Even if we assume that the threshold to call someone genius is a lot lower Belichick is still not there. What did Belichick invent? Walsh, Coryell has created schemes. Belichick did nothing like that.

Belichick is good at managing people, getting the best out of them, keeping them focused, motivated, hiring good personal. He may also be good at finding talent, but maybe that is Pioli. All of these makes him very good at his job, a good manager, most likely he would have succeeded in other professions: as a businessman or a project manager, if he had chosen that path, but a genius he is not.

121
by greennogo (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 11:36am

"Genius" as applied to any head coach is an absurd misnomer. All Walsh and Coryell did offensively was create variations of Paul Brown's playbook, and it would be a stretch at best to call Brown a genius. The label comes as a matter of comparison--tenured professors and Nobel prize winners don't typically look significantly brighter than their intelligent and erudite contemporaries. The contemporaries of Bill Walsh and Bill Belichick are Mike Ditka and Herm Edwards.

116
by Scott C :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 7:34am

Read the PFP 2008 Chapter on Denver's talent acquisition failures this decade. He only built good defenses off older scraps and free agents. His drafts, aside from a few good moves (Cutler, new shiny LT), have been downright BAD.

If you can get through that and still think he's good at getting talent on the team (especially on defense) in any way other than through free agency, I'd be shocked.

The number of starters in Denver that were drafted by Denver are very, very small compared to teams like the Chargers, Colts, or Pittsburgh.

Good coach? I think he is very good. Good GM? Not at all.

125
by bravehoptoad :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 12:34pm

Didn't have the talent to take the next step? I don't understand what you're talking about. If you're in the AFC Championship game, you've got the talent to take the next step.

Remember 2003-2004, when there was the ironclad rule of rock-paper-scissors: Broncos beat Pats, Pats beat Colts, Colts beat Broncos.

Both of those years, the Colts beat the Broncos in the playoffs, and the Pats beat the Colts. If the scheduling had been different, it could easily have been the Pats knocking the Colts out of the playoffs first, then getting canned by the Broncos.

What would this conversation be like if Shannahan had a couple titles in 2003 and 2004? That could have happened.

Didn't have the talent to take the next step? Have you just started watching football in the past three years?

32
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 9:07pm

I don't like the firing!

---

He's a fantastic coach - i think we can all agree to that?

He designed one of the best offensive schemes in the league for the last 20 years! If you don't agree - check Brian Griese and Jake Plummers performancec outside that system! He can make a starter out of any QB! Tyler Thigpen's hoping for MS to take over in KC, that's for sure!

What most people object to is his GM position/skills. I don't know... in year one of total control (firing Sundqist this off-season [pre-draft]) he got like 10 players, who at some point started a game, out of the same draft-class. He, in one off-season made, an old, tired, O-line into a young and elite unit! As anybody in Phoenix how hard that is! Plus: he, in two seasons, setup an elite reciever-unit (also young). I figure he did the drafting of Cutler, but that's speculation.

His only flaw is inabillity to evaluate defensive talent. He has nothing but failure in that area - and the few succeses there has been can be tributed to sheer chance! I mean, out of 50 defensive draftpicks, there is gonna be 5 starters, regardless of who did the drafting!

If you want to fire a hall of fame caliber coach over inabillity to evaluate defensive talent, be my guest.

That's how i feel... I haven't quite come to terms with it yet...

93
by Phoenix of Fury :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 1:05am

Agreed 100%. My roommate text me "Shanny got canned.", and my first thought was "You SOB, you're just trying to start a fight." I still can't believe it.

He definitely hasn't been great at drafting or evaluating defensive talent. There were a few years when they were horrible at the draft, but the past 3 years seem to have brought a great deal of talent to the team.

Watching Shanny leave is like watching your girlfriend of...well, 14 years walk away. I'm going to feel so betrayed if he signs with another NFL team. Any chance he'll move down to college level?

36
by BroncosGuy (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 9:16pm

This is an absolute, colossal blunder. Name 5 coaches you can be absolutely certain are better than Shanahan. Well, ok name 3. How about one?

Let's make it easier. Name 5 who you might think are about as good or better. Chris provides the list above, although I disagree on some of the names. I think Cowher is exceptional, and I wouldn't hire Bill Parcells to wash my car. Fisher, Belichick, Cowher. Maybe Gruden. There are a few young coaches who might be in this class, but we don't know yet.

This was a dumb, emotional, egoistic, irrational decision. Pat Bowlen still thinks he's the source of the Bronco's excellence. He's about to find out that he's wrong.

54
by Whodunit (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 10:39pm

But, Shanny was a very poor personnel guy, at least on defense. It's a safe bet Bowlen gave him the option of remaining coach and reporting to a GM and Shanny declined. Assuming that is how it went down, what choice did Bowlen have? How many defensive coordinators can you scapegoat before you get to Shanny's desk and find that is where the buck stops?

56
by jrbird (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 10:42pm

Is it irrational or is it hyperrational? Over the last few years, Shanahan has thrown everyone else who could possibly be blamed for the Broncos' defensive problems to the wolves. Isn't it easy to see a conversation between Shanny and Bowlen, at the end of the last season, with Bowlen saying "I'll fire this one, but if it doesn't get any better, it's your ass?" Once Bowlen and Shanahan had such a discussion, could he possibly have gone back on it this year and retained any authority?

The firing doesn't make sense in terms of there being better HCs out there -- but it may make sense in terms of ongoing management processes within the Broncs.

And, sometimes, teams just need a change. A lot of good teams run by good HCs have recently made the leap to winning the SB after a change to another good HC. Perhaps that's Bowlen's thought process?

Maybe this is the big chance for one of the Ryan brothers'?

66
by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 11:15pm

A lot of good teams run by good HCs have recently made the leap to winning the SB after a change to another good HC.

Um. What strange sport are you watching? Is this Bizarro-NFL? Because the last time I checked, the Super Bowl winners since 2002 had all been with their team for at least 4 years, and Gruden's a very special situation (unless the Broncos plan on trading mass amounts of picks away and hoping the team in question meets them in the Super Bowl with a moron head coach).

37
by MJK :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 9:24pm

For the record, when you take the playoff structure into account, Shannahan has what is effectively equal to a 0.571 win percentage in the playoffs. That's third among all active head coaches with at least four playoff appearances (behind only Belichick and Andy Reid), and sixth among all recently active head coaches with at least four playoff appearances (Gibbs, Billick, and Cowher are in the running, too).

So I think all the knocks about him being a bad playoff coach are a bit misplaced. Unless the Broncos think Andy Reid is going to be fired and they can pick him up.

142
by Wait, what? (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 3:06pm

As far as I can see, you are the only person on this entire page to mention Andy Reid. This says something, but I'm not quite sure what. I'm an Eagles fan, so I'm used to hearing people badmouth Reid, although I'm in the "who can you absolutely say is both better and available as a replacement?" camp as far as firing him goes.

39
by Bill Tsiu (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 9:44pm

Shannahan has been trying to build off the elway team the first few years post elway, though not totally rebuilding. Bolan should give him a few more years to finish the job!/Cool widgets at statbeast. Take a look!

41
by Some guy with an opinion (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 9:49pm

I think we're seeing a similar situation as with Mike Holmgren in Seattle a few years ago, except Holmgren agreed to relinquish his GM duties and stay on as head coach. I'd view it as more of an indictment of Shanahan's GM performance than his coaching.

Still pretty shocking, but once the surprise wears off there's a logical case to be made for the move. (As long as you're not asking a Broncos fan who reveres the Ultimate Leader.)

46
by chubbypuppy (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 10:30pm

Slowik must have some magic pixie dust. He was terrible in GB and Mike Sherman was desperate to keep him. Now he's coached a train wreck in Denver and Mikey insists he stay??

I am trying to understand what, precisely, Bob Slowik does WELL????

72
by ThunderThumbs (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 12:00am

All I hear is that he's a players coach. The players love him.

49
by Yaguar :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 10:33pm

If I were any unemployed coach I'd go for Denver in a heartbeat. Cutler and Marshall are going to get better and better, you aren't going to have the million running back injuries next year, and you have a great young offensive line. That offense is going to be atop the league for years. All you need is to cobble together a mediocre defense and you've got a team that can go deep into the playoffs.

Oh, and I am shocked and appalled as anyone. Shanahan has a marginally above-average winning percentage. While winning percentage isn't necessarily a measure of how good a coach is, I would consider "marginally above average" to be an accurate description of Shanahan's ability.

The thing is that "marginally above average" is likely about the best you're going to get. Presumably, most of the better guys have been locked up by the teams that they're winning with. To get a coach definitively better than Shanahan, Denver will have to find a hidden gem or win the Cowher sweepstakes.

53
by mrh :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 10:38pm

Here's what I posted in the Audibles thread:

from Audibles: Is this Tampa Bay loss the worst performance in Week 17 history for a team who needed to win in? Is it worse than Buffalo against Pittsburgh in 2004?

from my post:What about Denver in 2006, losing to SF and letting the Chiefs sneak into the playoffs? Couple that w/Denver's fade at the end of this season and I'm convinced that any other franchise would fire the HC responsible.

I think Shanahan was done in Denver, like Coughlin was done in JAX. The motivational stuff wasn't working anymore as evidenced by two late season failures in three years.

He obviously still has an eye for offensive talent but he needs a GM who can identify defensive talent and keep the talent/troublemaker ratio in check.

I think to some extent Shanahan became too willing to take chances on players with behavior issues - Clarett, Henry, Marshall, for example. (Marshall so far has been mostly a plus, but after watching him demand the ball and spike it after the 4th down end zone incompletion Sunday night, does anyone think we've seen the last suspension for Marshall?) This willingness may be as much a part of the Broncos collapses the last few years as the defensive woes. And it may be these issues that brought him down as much as the late season losses and mediocre three year run. Because Bowlen must see the potential of this team next year with just adequate defense...

I'm not sure Shanahan is willing to take a position w/o complete control. If he would, I'd love to see him come to KC. If not, then I wouldn't mind him going elsewhere.

59
by B :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 10:45pm

I think Shannahan's problem has been his inability to craft an above average defense. Something that wasn't helped by his readiness to fire defensive coordinators. I think he'd be a successful head coach if he had less GM powers and is paired with a talented DC.

61
by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 10:58pm

Except he did, in 2004 and 2005. Shanahan's biggest problem is that his team was in the AFC from 2000-2005.

74
by Charger Jeff (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 12:03am

Absolute crap. The problem wasn't the conference, it was the poor scouting and poor drafting. Aside from the 13-3 year in 2003, the Broncos were very slightly above average in talent and results. He's still an offensive genius, I still cop to that. But as a fan of an AFC West opponent, I've really enjoyed the deterioration of the core of that team. Sorry, it's been obvious for a long time.

94
by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 1:05am

Aside from the 13-3 year in 2003, the Broncos were very slightly above average in talent and results.

You mean 2005. They were 10-6 in 2004 and 10-6 in 2003, and in both of those years they weren't a "very slightly above average" team. They were a very solid team. Just about any measure of team strength shows that - DVOA, Pythagorean wins, whatever.

Put the Broncos in the NFC in 2004, and they've got a first-round bye. Put the Broncos in the NFC in 2005, and they're the favorites to reach the Super Bowl.

In terms of scouting/drafting, I'd never try to claim that Shanahan's as good as say, Dungy/Polian or Belichick/Pioli. Of course not. But he's clearly better than the average, and it's not worth getting rid of an above-average GM+head coach to try to get a "great" GM+head coach. Not going to happen.

133
by Charger Jeff (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 1:42pm

My apologies, I had the wrong year for the 13-3 season. But you can't argue that it's been a steady decline over several years. My brother is a devout Broncos fan, and I've been trying to tell him the Broncos were overrated since the year they were in the AFCCG. It was obvious even then that their defense wasn't championship caliber, and that their DL and secondary (Bailey notwithstanding) was easily solved due to age/deterioration. All I'm saying is that, while Shanahan's accomplishments are obvious and HOF worthy, something's been broken in Denver for a long time, and it's much more than just this year's historic collapse. I think the separation and need for new blood was necessary for both parties (in the same vein as Madden's 10 year theory).

135
by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 2:37pm

I dunno. To me, it looks like they built a championship-level team up through 2006, and then age, injuries, and tragedy (don't forget that Darrent Williams was shaping up to be a very good player) chipped away at the defense at the same time the offense was being rebuilt.

Now, the offense pretty much is rebuilt, including a 22-year old LT who looks like a bookend for a decade and a 25-year old QB who'll be one of the better QBs for years to come.

The decision to fire Shanahan is entirely based on whether or not you think he can rebuild the defense. The problem was, even if you think the answer to that is "no," losing Shanahan means the offense will likely start regressing now, too.

Personally, in my opinion, if you've got a coach who can reliably produce a top-level offense or defense, even if they suck on the other side, you keep them, and hope that health and a bit of luck in drafting gets you an average-or-better defense. Because your chances of finding a GM who can build both a great offense and defense is tiny.

159
by I miss Haven Moses (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 9:26pm

I've read 100+ posts that occurred before this. Pat (filler) is the first one I see that vaguely mentioned injuries this year. We lost like 27 RBs to the IR - one of whom was a big slow rookie from Arkansas who ran for 100+ yards before hitting the IR. 'It's the system' - Shanny's system. We lost a few starting LBs to injury for multiple games - all of whom are talented players. Our starting CB (Darrent Williams) unfortunately passed away. Doesn't any coach going 8-8 with that luck get a pass? Especially Shanahan? I think even I would get a pass if that happened.

Portis for Champ? Questionable at the time, now brilliant. Dealing George Foster for Dre Bly? An upgrade of a pick that didn't work. The Cutler selection (thought Shanny was crazy)? All would agree it was brilliant. Drafting Clady this year? All great moves.

An above average 2008 offense given the RB injuries and a horrible defense given what happened is all understandable. Only two posts in the whole stream have attempted to answer this question: why did this happen?

Sad in Richmond...so sad.

63
by mrh :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 11:08pm

I dispute the idea that there aren't other good or better possible coaches out there.

Go to p-f-r. Import coaches records. Filter out coaches who last coached before 2005. Sort by reg season winning pct. Top 5 names: Harbaugh, Mike Smith, Sparano, Tomlin, Dungy. Except for Dungy, no one knows if those guys will have long-term success but it looks to me like there are plenty of candidates for at least a year of success greater than 7-9, 8-8, 9-7.

There are six more names above Shanahan for career winning pct: Martz, Cowher, Gibbs, Belichick, Schottenheimer, Reid. Assuming Gibbs is retired, three of those are available. Cowher or Martz would be very interesting choices.

If you assume that the .500 record of the last three years is the Shanahan's current ability as a combined GM/coach, there are 21 more names on the list. A few aren't realistic candidates due to age or their own decline: Dennis Green, Vermeil, Shell. Several others are employed (presumably): Wade Phillips, Parcells, Fox, Lovie Smith, Fisher, Singeltary, Coughlin, Jim Mora, Gruden, Whisenhunt, Del Rio, Payton, McCarthy, Childress. A few might be available: Holmgren, Sherman, Billick, Mariucci.

Then there's one name that gave me pause: Jim Zorn. Does anyone else think that Snyder has a jet winging west at this moment? Or is at least asking for flight plans?

68
by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 11:22pm

There are six more names above Shanahan for career winning pct: Martz, Cowher, Gibbs, Belichick, Schottenheimer, Reid. Assuming Gibbs is retired, three of those are available. Cowher or Martz would be very interesting choices.

So.. the Broncos fired their coach, and there are only 3 coaches possibly available who have better career success. Good thing that the Broncos are the only team looking for a coach, right? I mean, if there were, say, 3 or 4 other teams out there who were searching for coaches, there'd be a decent chance that the Broncos end up with someone who's crap.

81
by Dave0 :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 12:29am

Come on--I'd be willing to bet most coaches would rather run the Broncos for Pat Bowlen than any of the other vacancies, and most other NFL outfits period. You don't have to like the firing, but if you're worried about the Lions looking like a more desirable location for Bill Cowher than the Ponies, you're just being ridiculous.

97
by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 1:20am

Come on--I'd be willing to bet most coaches would rather run the Broncos for Pat Bowlen than any of the other vacancies

Yes, because it's ridiculous that Cowher would want to coach the Browns and not have to move halfway across the country (and get a chance to face teams he already knows), and it's completely crazy that a team might want to coach the Jets in the US's largest market. Crazy, I tell you.

And coaching the Lions? Why would someone want to coach an 0-16 team? Yeah, I'm sure it would have nothing to do with the fact that it's far easier to improve an 0-16 team to 8-8 than an 8-8 team to 12-4. I've never heard of a coach preferring to come into places that are disasters so that an improvement to average/slightly above average looks brilliant. I've certainly never heard of a coach doing it multiple times and being considered a Hall of Fame coach, so that must be a terrible idea.

163
by Dave0 :: Thu, 01/01/2009 - 2:22am

Yes, because it's ridiculous that Cowher would want to coach the Browns and not have to move halfway across the country (and get a chance to face teams he already knows)

For many people, it's the right direction to move, you know. And I'd rather face crappy teams I don't know than good teams I do, which is what I'd get in the AFC West.

And coaching the Lions? Why would someone want to coach an 0-16 team? Yeah, I'm sure it would have nothing to do with the fact that it's far easier to improve an 0-16 team to 8-8 than an 8-8 team to 12-4.

Rrrrriiiight. Because Cowher really needs to roll the dice to truly polish his Hall of Fame credentials, rather than join an organization with consistent ownership, a winning tradition, some solid young building blocks, and an intense fan base.

Look, maybe you're right and Bowlen craps out and hires Ted Cottrell as head coach or something, but the Broncos don't appear to be worrying about the Lions job being available when they decide to look elsewhere for a coach and that's absolutely the right instinct on their part.

104
by deflated (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 3:00am

A question: why do you assume that .500 is an accurate reflection of his ability to coach given the significant youth movement/retooling after the AFC Championship run with Plummer and that veteran squad? His offenses are still consistently productive while the defence of the last two years (which everyone assumes he has the least involvement in) are complete outliers in his career, horrible against the run which was the strength of the Denver D.

A comment: your 'better coaches out there' argument doesn't know where its going. If you are talking about the ability of any active coach compared to Shanahan then names like Harbaugh, Smith, Sparano need to be culled - two years ago that list would have included Mangini and I didn't see him anywhere. Cross out Tomlin and Martz, they both inherited stacked teams due to retirements (and Martz ran himself out of a job). You compare Parcell's career to Shanahan's last three years; why not compare full careers where Shanahan has a better win %? Same for Phillips, Gruden, Mora, Holmgren, Fisher, Mariucci, Billick - they all have 9+ years as HC, if you're going to compare then either use final 3 years for both or full career for both. Your list will get much, much smaller.

If you're talking about Shanahan's ability to be replaced with a known equivalent talent then don't throw out names that aren't realistic possibilities. Holmgren just spent 18 months setting up his retirement and you couldn't pry Coughlin out of NY with dynamite. Sherman, Billick and Mariucci just don't have records as good. Martz has been available for 3 1/2 seasons and no team has been willing to try him. You're quickly down to Cowher and Schottenheimer for Shanahan's peers and 1) neither is desperate in any way to get back in the game and 2) the current Denver roster is just about as far from a Martyball squad or those Steeler defensive units as I can imagine. It would take years for either of them to impose their own vision on the roster.

64
by BroncoFrank (not verified) :: Tue, 12/30/2008 - 11:10pm

As a life long Bronco fan - having lived through Elways superbowl losses - and his wins... vaguely remembering the pre Dan Reeves era. Having been there when Shanatan was first hired, inherited Reeves' system - and ran with it (quite well at times - to his credit) I can say one thing and one thing only to all you other Broncos fans who thinks this was a bad decision: pass me some of what you are smoking.

It was time for Mike Shanatan to go. Period. He's not just a bad GM - he is a HORRIBLE gm. These defenses aren't just bad - they are horrendous. Embarrassingly terrible.

This is good for the Broncos long run period. Any of you homers who can't see that need to pass the duch please.

79
by ygold (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 12:21am

Not sure what people expected Shanahan to do with 7 RBs on IR. I wouldn't say he's horrible as a GM, after all, he's been able to trade guys like Ruben Droughns and Tatum Bell for talent or draft picks. Not sure what he was smoking with taking Maurice Clarett 2 rounds too early, but even Vermeil goofed with Lawrence Philips.

Maybe Shanahan's not the best coach in the league, but he's a really good coach, and as a Jets fan this news makes me happy.

75
by Joe T. (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 12:09am

Young QB with an arm. 2 impressive wide receivers. Good o-line. Lots of crippled running backs limping around. No defense.

Sounds like a good fit for Mike Martz. He can run the offense as HC (which has more talent than his previous stops for sure) and the Broncos can focus on finding a DC and bring the team under the reigns of the GM.

78
by Dave0 :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 12:20am

I'd definitely hire him if I could pair him with a strong GM.

Shanahan had some major-league draft goofs. Mo Clarett with a third might have been the worst draft pick I've ever seen.

80
by ygold (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 12:27am

Speaking more to Shanahan the GM, how about the '06 draft: Cutler (moving up to take him over Leinert), Scheffler, Marshall, Dumervil. Can't get much better than that.

82
by Rots (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 12:35am

I think this was overdue. We had the most dead cap space behind only San Fran and the Skins this decade and either the second or third fewest games started in aggregate from all our draft picks this decade. In the five drafts from 2001-2005 there are only 2 starters on this years team.

Endless FA busts, mostly on the defensive side, an inexcusable amount of terrible home losses (San Fran to end the year two years ago, Raiders several times, the Bungles) several just beyond ludicrous beat downs (2007 lions, 2008 chefs and raiders among others) and a never ending stream of DC scapegoats.

Offensively weve not been the same since Kubiak left and although i think b/n that awesome pass blocking Oline, Cutler and their receivers the O is in great shape to start averaging 28ppg its just not enough to make up for that defense.

Special teams other than Elam havent been special either. Consistently weve been at or near the bottom in average starting field position for years as well as allowing our opponents to oftentimes have the best starting field position of any team.

Add all of that up and we are nothing but a mediocre team going nowhere. Dont underestimate the fact that Bowlen looked at next years schedule (NFC East, AFC South, Patriots) and concluded that even with an improved team we might be lucky to win 7 games. This way w/a new coach there is at least the one year honeymoon period that we can weather while we get our butts kicked.

Go Broncos 2010!?

87
by Tom C. Huskey (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 12:52am

Somebody pointed this out earlier, and I think it bears repeating.

I don't think Marty was fired as a coach. I think he was asked to step down as GM, and he quit (or "got quit") from the coaching position as a result.

96
by Shattenjager :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 1:12am

Do you mean in Washington or in San Diego? In San Diego he was not the GM and was fired as coach. In Washington I'm not sure but I thought he was fired from both positions--someone else would probably know better.

99
by Shattenjager :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 1:30am

Since I've been commenting on others' comments, I think I will just lay out why I have long wanted Shanahan fired.

First off, yes, he is a very good head coach, maybe even a great one. He is possibly the best offensive schemer in the NFL and has consistently fielded at least competitive teams, which is a heck of an accomplishment.

However, his record as personnel head is atrocious:

He has consistently drafted horrendously (though the last 3 years seem to have been better). There's not even reason to go back through all the ways in which Denver has consistently drafted failures throughout his tenure, because it is already so well documented.

He has failed in his search for a true featured running back since the exit of Terrell Davis. Shanahan has always said that he wants that type of runner--the committees he uses are not by design. He decided once that the right guy was available in the third round of the draft. That was Maurice Clarett. He decided once that the right guy was available in free agency for BIG bucks. That was Travis Henry. He also is so quick to dump running backs that promising players have been quietly removed from the team for one inopportune fumble. Further, the one time he DID have the right back (in fact, a PERFECT back for his system), Clinton Portis, he traded him to get a very good but injury-prone man-cover corner to play zone.

The defense has suffered not so much from the coordinators, but the players. (At the very least, Jim Bates was a successful coordinator elsewhere for years and he couldn't get anything out of Denver's players.) Shanahan has consistently loaded the defense with Millen-esque collection of non-talent and then fired his coordinator when it didn't work out. I also considered his constant coordinator-firing rather classless, like the way he treated all players he didn't like (ask Todd Sauerbrun, who is, to be fair, something of a slimeball).

I would love to hire Shanahan as a head coach. But he simply does not have the abilities necessary to be a general manager, and it's awfully difficult to get a dictator to give up his power.

By the way, my wish list of replacements at HC would include several of the names mentioned (but absolutely not Schottenheimer--don't even ask why) earlier but also Jack Del Rio, whom I expect to be fired next week (and now am hoping will be fired, since he would then be available), and Jim Schwartz. I also REALLY hope they bring in Scott Pioli as GM. I'm afraid, though, that Bowlen may have fallen in love with the Shanahan power structure, which would mean another autocratic coach.

101
by cjfarls :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 1:55am

You're calling Bailey injury prone? He's played like 14+ games per year every year except this one. He's getting older now, but he was a legitimate Defensive MVP caliber player for years! He got that, plus a #2 draft pick!

If you really think the Portis trade was anything but a complete win for Denver, I can't take anything else you ever write seriously. Portis is a great RB, but to use that trade as an example of Shanny's POOR GM skills is absolutely baffling.

164
by Shattenjager :: Thu, 01/01/2009 - 3:30am

If you actually said anything that really had anything to do with what I said, maybe you would have a point.

1. Shanahan has said, repeatedly, that he WANTS an every-down, workhorse-like back.
2. The only back who has been close to that since Terrell Davis is Clinton Portis.
3. In spite of 1, Shanahan sent Portis packing, then continued to opine that he just couldn't find "the guy."

That has absolutely nothing to do with how good a player Bailey is or how good a trade that was.

By the way, I worry about anyone who takes anything they read in any online "comments" section about anything seriously, so that's not much of a threat. However, since it has been made clear that I'm not welcome on this site, when I finish this little set of comments, I will not make any more. So, you can rejoice.

166
by Shattenjager :: Thu, 01/01/2009 - 4:17am

By the way, Bailey is 30. I'm not sure when CBs start to decline according to FO, but I'm not sure I would describe him as "getting older" for a couple more years, unless of course you mean literally in which case I agree he has been for over 30 years. From what admittedly little I saw of him this season, Bailey looked fine at the start of the year but looked injured at the end. I don't think he's yet declining with age--just suffering from injury. You seem to have taken my comment about Bailey as a denigration of his abilities, which is not at all what I meant.

And just to reiterate, I didn't say it was a bad trade (let alone "an example of Shanny's POOR GM skills"), just part of a pattern of Shanahan's failure to get the RB he said he wanted.

108
by deflated (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 3:30am

Wow. Shanahan has problems finding running backs and Champ Bailey has been a poor fit and injury-prone in Denver. You may want to rethink that.

165
by Shattenjager :: Thu, 01/01/2009 - 3:37am

If I said that Shanahan has had problems finding running backs, you might have a point, but I said he has failed in finding what he says he wants: an every-down, 20-carry-a-game, non-committee back. As far as I'm concerned, he has done an excellent job in that area, but apparently he has never had someone up to his own standards, which is a failure.

I did not mean that Champ Bailey has been a poor fit, just a less-than-ideal fit, which is significantly different.

If Bailey has not been injured, then why has his play so obviously so suddenly suffered just after being forced out of a game, missing practice, etc at least a few times? He's really just that inconsistent, even in his physical skill set (for example, his running speed)? I understand he has continued to play through his injuries, but he still has had at least a few and they have obviously affected his play for several stretches of time.

161
by John (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 10:46pm

...but also Jack Del Rio, whom I expect to be fired next week (and now am hoping will be fired, since he would then be available)

As a Colts fan, I live in terror that del Rio will leave the Jags and be replaced by a good coach. Jacksonville is scary enough with him at the reigns.

Conversely, I briefly fantasized about Jeff Fisher leaving to take the HC job with Miami this season. Getting him out of our division and into the Patriots' hair would have been very very nice.

100
by cjfarls :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 1:50am

I'm a bronco fan in the "this was a dumb idea" camp.

Anyone who thinks any team stays at .500 or above over 15 years without a great head coach is deluding themselves. Are there better coaches (and more particularly, coach/GM tandems) better? Most definitely... Are there more than 4 or 5? Maybe not. Getting this current year's extremely young O, and talentless D to within 4 quarters of a AFCW crown was a great bit of coaching in my opinion.

I definitely know I'll be pissed if Shanahan goes to KC, or worst case to SD if Indy spanks SD this weekend and Norv gets canned. I don't want to regularly play against Shanahan.

That said, the folks who talked about the management situation and that he'd gotten "stale" in Denver may have a point. Bowlen may have had to assert some authority if he tried to cut GM role, or if Bowlen had laid down the law on the DEF earlier.

I also have to say that I disagree with Shanny if this is over keeping Slowik (who is a bum). An argument could be made that consistency in the D-coordinator position could help immensely. However, if Shanny was so completely sold on keeping Slowik that he was canned over it, Shanny is the one who hasn't been paying attention.

I'll give Bowlen the benefit of the doubt (for now) that he can find a suitable replacement. I like the idea of Cowher, Spags, the Ryans...

However, sadly I think the odds are our next coach will not be as good or successful as we've come to expect from Shanahan teams... I'm already having horrible flashbacks to Wade Phillips teams. Uuugh.

109
by Bronco Jeff :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 3:46am

Seconded. Shanahan was a great coach and I think this is a dumb move.

And now, a rant about the Broncos.

Look, the fact is that the offense Shanahan built is young, good, and is only scratching the surface of its potential. When Hillis and Torain are healthy and behind that offensive line, the Broncos will be unstoppable on offense. Besides giving up too soon on Domenik Hixon and signing Travis Henry, I can't fault Shanahan for much of anything on this side of the ball as it pertains to the team's recent history.

With that said, that defense was putrid. Putrid. Most people thought that the Broncos needed a safety in last year's draft (and the year before that), but did Shanahan draft one? No. And we only had 7-8 different starting safeties this year, none of them any good. I mean, when Marlon McCree is your best safety, you have a problem. Shanahan traded away his nickel corner/safety, Foxworth, before the year, and that turned out well, didn't it? Watching an undrafted rookie (Josh Bell) start over two of Shanahan's draft picks (Paymah, Williams) when Champ (one of the few legit players they have on defense) got hurt was sure great, especially when Greg Camarillo of the Dolphins ran 87 consecutive 11-yard outs in a row against his ultrasoft coverage. Why bother running when the pass defense is this porous? I thought that things would get better when Bailey returned, but it turned out that he was the version of Champ that lacked the speed to stick with Antonio Gates or Vincent Jackson. Bottom line, the secondary is a disaster.

That's not even mentioning the linebacking corps! People cite the fact that they were very injured all year, but the fact is that the linebackers played better when, you know, the starters were all injured. Nate Webster very well might be the worst starting NFL linebacker that I've ever seen. Ever. Add to that the fact that he very well could also be the dumbest linebacker that I've ever seen and his stupidity spreads to the other linebackers when he's on the field and you have a problem. When Webster is on the field, the whole defense is worse off. I've never seen so many linebackers out of position on defense as a running back/TE/whatever runs through gaping holes. And when they do finally make the tackle after the runner has made a first down/achieved tactical success, they jaw like idiots as if they'd just cured cancer. DJ Williams was decent until he was paired with good old Nate, but now he's been afflicted with the same mysterious malady, as has Jamie Winborn (though he was never decent). I mean, the LBs were best when it was an undrafted rookie (Woodyard), a fifth-rounder who doubled as the starter at fullback (Larsen), and Winborn (a career journeyman). At least Shanahan acquired Woodyard and Larsen, but again he didn't address the need early in the draft or in free agency (Boss Bailey? Niko Koutovides? Really?). In any case, the LBs were terrible.

Shanahan's adventures in DL acquisition are well-documented (Browncos, Jarvis Moss, Tim Crowder), but at least he did get Dumervil in the 4th round of the 2006 draft. Robertson was a bust as a DT, but at least he wasn't Sam Adams or Jamie Kennedy, and Marcus Thomas isn't completely useless, but they need to jettison Engelberger and Ekuban before they hurt themselves running into those bigger, stronger, faster offensive linemen in their old age. Actually, let's face it, the D-Line was terrible too.

The defense wasn't always terrible under Shanahan, as Pat pointed out, but when the Broncos lost Al Wilson, their last real leader, and Darrent Williams (an up and comer at CB) the defense irrecoverably fell apart and couldn't get up again.

That's not even mentioning the agonizing journey that was Matt Prater's descent into the depths of terrible kicking, going from Superman to worse than Tony Danza. Matt's kickoffs were only getting weaker--not that it mattered. We couldn't cover them or punts anyways. Eddie Royal was good, but that was about it. This has been a problem for the Broncos (Elam notwithstanding) for a long time, and it hasn't really ever been addressed).

The Broncos had all of these problems, put 17ish players on IR (7 RBs), lost their best defensive player, and Shanahan almost took this team to the playoffs! If that doesn't tell you what a great coach he is, I don't know what does. But on the same side, it also tells you that he has a BIG problem with his defensive talent evaluation. And that's something that needed to be fixed if the Broncos are going to succeed.

So ultimately, if Shanahan could have been kept at the head coach position with complete oversight on offense while simultaneously being removed from defensive talent evaluation completely, that would be great. But obviously that would never work. So I'm not happy about the firing, but I can understand some of the rationale behind it. I just don't expect the team to be as good as they would have been with the Mastermind in charge.

105
by jackinabox (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 3:10am

I am thinking this is all Aaron's fault. Bowlen was probably surfing through the Week 17 DVOA total and saw the section on how abysmal the Bronco defence really was!

On a more serious note, I am long time Bronco fan --15+ years... and while I have all the respect in the world for Shanahan's offensive game planning capabilities... this was ultimately inveitable once he assumed the full GM mantle. Other than the Cutler draft year, talent aquisition has been mediocre to terrible over the last 5 years. The defence is in truly terrible shape. Other than Champ and Bly, there is nothing to build around. And they become just average to poor with zero pass rush.

In fact, Bowlen was probably seeing what I saw on Sunday, which was a defence that was so bad, it was forcing the offence into more and more hopeless situations, excessive risk-taking, and subsequently needless mistakes.

The 8-8 record was a mirage. This team should have been 5-11.

I wish Shanny all the best and now cross my fingers and hope this doesn't blow up in the face of the Broncos.

107
by Rots (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 3:21am

I generally agree w/you Jack but i had to take issue with your mention of Bly as a building block. He is the modern incarnation of that classic Giant, Elvis "toast" Patterson. We cant get rid of Bly soon enough imo.

I dont care if we have D. Sanders back there its all moot until if/when we can actually get to the QB and cause some turnovers. We have been consistently dreadful in the turnover differential department most of this decade. Makes me pine for the days of Greg Robinson.

Due to the horrendous signings of Griese and all the FA busts Shanahole was consistently hamstrung capwise which in turn led directly to us dumping guys like Bertrand Berry, Trevor Pryce and Reggie Hayward. You know, guys that actually got the QB every now and then.

178
by cjfarls :: Fri, 01/02/2009 - 2:33pm

This actually is a really good point. A lot of the defensive collapse the past few yearas can be attributed to the D-line cap-caualties Denver had due to some of the early 2000's free agent busts (and late season salries for the 1990s SB players).

With perfect 2020 hindsight, Shananhan probably should've gone into "rebuilding" mode earlier (we've been in rebuilding mode the past 2 years), instead of trying to squeak 1 or 2 more playoffs/SB out of the aging SB core.

Of course, then we would've perhaps not had the 13-3 season and 10-6 seasons, meaning he would've been fired earlier... and we would've all complained about how cruddy the team was then and how we mistreated the SB vets.

Perhaps only TEN is smart enough to realize that if you give a good coach time and the ability to regroup (as they did with Fisher), they WILL get back.

106
by Love is like a bottle of gin (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 3:13am

The bottom line is the chance his replacement is better than him is probably 10%. have fun with that Denver. Odds are you go from perennial also-ran, to perennial stink blossom. Hope you enjoy that transition.

110
by JoRo (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 4:19am

I think at this point, the firing of Shanny isn't because he was a bad coach... it just had become a relationship that had become too strained to end well.

It basically became one of those "we both just need to find other people" kind of thing. Someone above said he wouldn't be able to just blow up a roster cuz he had so much pressure to get into the playoffs and do damage... which makes it amazing how well he rebuilt the O basically on the fly.

The D is going to need more than that, and the decision by him to not fire Slow was the sign that he didn't want to have to risk a new mind again.

I think that, and the GM stuff was why he was done.

120
by Max (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 11:21am

I think in the end, despite some reports, it was Shanahan the GM who was fired. Unfortunately he couldn't separate coach from GM ("thats pride fuckin' with you" Mike). He should succeed if he comes back as a O-coordinator or head coach with good GM. Still, he was 24-24 over the past 3 years, and the defense (save Bailey) should be put out of everyone's misery. The fans were pissed and no matter how good the offense was (or could have been) Mike was lost on defense. He had several consecutive years of MISERABLE drafts, and his all-football-powerful post was an anachronism. It's a cruel business, and I know the people of Denver will be eternally grateful for a historical 3 year run, but....it was time to go Mike. Good luck. (If we didn't need stability at the position so badly, I would love to see him come back to SF as a coordinator).

122
by Chris (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 11:59am

Public opinion on coaches seems to change with the wind. Right now, Jim Harbaugh, Mike Tomlin, Tony Sporano, and Mike Smith are all the new young geniuis much like Sean Payton, Mangini, and others off to early success. A lot of times the previous coach has key injuries and the teams W/L record doesn't dictate the talent level. Just by getting injured guys back and doing an "average" job the W/L record can improve a lot.

I like to see the coaches that could withstand the test of time. The Shannihans, Fischers, Parcells, Martyaball's can withstand the boom-bust cycle of an NFL team in a free agency era.

Somebody said that they would add John Fox to the list, but he was on the hot seat last year. I do think Fox is an above average coach, but people have such a short term memory. Jack Del Rio may not have a great W/L record this year, but he is another strong head coach. Gruden's team faltered at the end, but I think he is a one of the better than average coaches. Lovie Smith will do a better job than an average coach but his team is out of the playoffs.

I think Dungy is the most overrated coach in the NFL. He was coaching a team in Tampa that basically had 7 of it's 11 starters on defense at pro bowl level. The Bucs were the paper champions for a few seasons because of all that talent they had. He benefited from fantastic talent, but his ultra conservative approach and lack of game planning genius got him bounced from the playoffs every year ( Gruden won the same exact team 1 year later). In Dungy's second stint, he was handed the best QB of all-time and other quality skilled position players on offense. The Colts won despite Dungy's defenses and when they lost in the playoffs it was because Peyton ( not Dungy) couldn't win the big one. Dungy just played it all safe, didn't do anything crazy, and pumped out a very good regular season W/L record which deserves some credit, but he is no better than average in my book. There are a handfull of " bad/average" coaches that could have won with what he had and was given by his GM's.

Part of my reason for NOT thinking Cower is so great, is because I believe Dick Lebau IS a GENUIS and the best defensive coordinator in the NFL hands down. Cower was blessed with a top 5 organization and strong fan base. He is probably a solid above average coach, but miracle worker, I think not. People want what they can't have and right now Cower isn't in the NFL. It is sort of like how fans attach move value to a big free agent signing than a big free agent loss. The optimist and homer in us all.

PS I think Gary Kubiak is the next Shannihan. The guy knows offense and is putting the pieces together. When he took over, he had nothing, no QB, no Line, no RB and he has done a better job on ofense than expected.

I think the schemes run by Shanny and Kubiak are very QB friendly. As mentioned, Shanny has sent his QB's to the pro bowl. Was he a great teacher, did he draft well, or were the schemes QB frienldy? Maybe all of the above, but his offensive success is no accident. I credit his knowledge and the QB friendly schemes he runs. They look cookie cutter and they work. Even when Alex Gibbs installed the same zone blocking schemes in Atlanta they led the league in rushing and Vick's passing peaked it all out. Look at what teams run zone blocking schemes, Broncos, Texans, Patriots, Giants, Colts. Why do they run the schemes? They work.

You people saying that Shanny is a terrible GM.... Drafting Cutler, Schieffler, Marshall, and Elvis in the same draft is one of the best drafts I can ever remember. It is Hershall Walker trade-like. Please remember that he wasn't "given" Jay Cutler like some top QB lock, Shanny traded up in a shrewed move to get him. Then he proceeded to draft a stud WR, Stud TE, and solid pass rusher in the same draft. If it weren't for Matt Ryan this year, he would have the rookie of the year this year too with Ryan Clady. Sure the defense sucked, but he could have allocated the resources in this offseason to building a solid young D to go along with that solid young Offense.

And I mean, if Romeo Crennell lost 7 running backs to injury, would people just over look that or would they say " poor Romeo", he lost 7 running backs!

131
by bravehoptoad :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 1:15pm

I don't know what your problem is with Dungy, but it's not what you say it is. A lot of great coaches have had great quarterbacks. What's Landry without Staubach? Walsh without Montana? Noll without Bradshaw? Etc. A lot of great defensive coaches have had great players on defense. If you're going to hold that against a coach, then you're going to empty the Hall of Fame of most of its coaches.

Look, if your gripe against Dungy is that he had loads of talent at both his teams, then you also have to give him a lot of credit for the way he's been able to create a decent defense in Indy while getting less cap space devoted to it than any other team in professional football. The way he plugs in low-round draft picks into that defense and gets consistent performance out of them is amazing, and if your gripe against him is the talent he's had, then you have to give him kudos for that.

123
by Independent George :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 12:11pm

How's this for a crazy machiavellian plot...

SD loses to IND this weekend. Norv is fired on Monday. Shannahan is hired by the Chargers on Tuesday.

It's the perfect setup - he takes over a young, talented team with a good GM making personnel decisions, and gets to play the Raiders and the Broncos twice a year.

Now, all AJ Smith has to do is sabotage his team somehow...

127
by James G (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 12:51pm

I think this firing may have had more to with the personnel turnover under Shanahan than their record recently. Remember, GM Ted Sundquist was fired in March due to a personality conflict with Shanahahn. Remember the XP article about all the other Broncos people that were fired - including the editor of their weg page? Shanahan was the one who called the shots for these firings, and for all the multiple DC's that the Broncos have gone through recently. While Shanahan was a constant, there was no other stability in coaching staff recently. I just think the instability had to come up to the top manager, and that was Shanahan.

128
by Chris (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 1:04pm

George- I think that would be awsome. Shannihan with an offensive line, competant QB, Stud RB, stud TE, and Ron Rivera running an aggressive and talented defense. SD would mop the floor with that divison, and I'd love to see Cutler and Rivers go at it.

FYI - I like Indy on the road laying 1 point to beat San Diego so maybe your situation comes true.

129
by ChiJeff (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 1:06pm

Mike Shannahan has been and is a VERY good coach. I do not believe that he was fired because of his credentials as a coach, I think after 14 years in one place a head coach loses something. The same motivational tactics and speeches simply loses steam. Quite frankly, it is possible that the Shannahan/Broncos marriage had run it's course. Sure the Broncos could have retained Shanny and continued on a 9-7, 8-8
even 10 -6 path indefinitely but would they be making that next jump? I think having a three game lead with three to play
and then losing the next three games sort of signifies the staleness in the organization. I just do not think todays NFL
is built for coaches to stay 15 or 20 years in one place. A new voice and new ideas could really do the Broncos some good.
But that in no way implies that Shanny is a bad coach. Just means that perhaps the law of diminishing returns have kicked in. As a Bears fan I have little problem with Lovie Smith but if he were hit by a bus today, I would hope the Bears would pick up the phone and talk to Mike Shannahan.

130
by Dice (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 1:09pm

If I'm an owner and need a coach and/or GM, can I try to pair Shanny and Casserly?

132
by MJK :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 1:30pm

So by my count, four teams (Broncos, Lions, Browns and Jets) have fired their HC. One other team (Seahawks) has lost theirs to retirement (although they have a replacement lined up).

Two other teams have rumors swirling that they may fire their HC (Bills, Cowboys), two teams have interim guys that may or may not be promoted to full HC (Raiders and Rams), and one other team has HC retirement rumors (Indy), althought they, like Seattle, theoretically have a replacement lined up. Plus, Norv Turner may find himself on the hotseat if the Chargers lose to Indy, which is eminently possible.

That's at least five and as many as eleven teams (out of 32)looking to make head coaching changes. If the teams with retiring coaches plug their expected replacements in, then that's still four to nine teams looking for coaches.

And who's on the market? Cowher has pretty much indicated no interest in anyone and I think he's out of the running.

Solid picks:
Schottenheimer
Shanahan

maybe Martz
maybe Mangini

Plus about three or four coordinators have been rumored (at least that I've heard) to be in consideration for HC positions: Josh McDaniels, Steve Spagnuolo, Kevin Gilbride, Jim Schwartz.

That's seven decent looking candidates, only two or three of which are proven, for five to nine vacancies. Except the list isn't even that long, considering the Raiders will never hire Shanahan or Marty, the Broncos won't rehire Shanahan, the Chargers won't hire Marty, the Jets won't hire Mangini, teams in general will be gun shy about McDaniels and Mangini given the failures of Saban, Crennel, and Mangini...

If you have a good coach, it just seems like a bad idea to fire him given that you're likely to end up with someone no better and potentially much worse...

134
by ChiJeff (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 1:51pm

RE: Chris

Ah the Tony Dungy is " overrated " thread rears it's yearly ugly head. While I respect your football acumen I am going to have to go to war over this. Again. His days in Tampa were impressive because first off he had to change a culture mired in losing. The Bucs were a laughing stock. Sure he had talent
but that is what wins in pro sports. What Dungy did was put the defensive talent in a scheme ( the much malinged Tampa 2 ) that took advantage of the athleticsm and speed of his players. The scheme was simple enough so that the players did not have to " think " as much they could just react and play.
And they did so very effectively. Yes you are very correct they did not win a Superbowl under his watch. Lack of qb play and quite frankly a lack of a singular stud running back hurt them as well. But give Jon Gruden credit. He had the right message at the right time and they won. ( although since then JG has had some real issues ) But Coach Dungy did set it up for Gruden to be a sucess right away and they were ready.

Now jump to Indy. Yes, Dungy inherited Peyton Manning but remember there were always LOUD whispers as to whether or not he could win " big " games. Having Manning was no slam dunk in going to the Superbowl. The potential was there certainly but Manning had something to prove. Dungy's job was to craft a defense that could give Manning a chance to win games. And Dungy had to do this on the cheap. Think about this that defense is built around one undersized DE in Dwight Freeney, another even SMALLER DE in Robert Mathis and an undersized and oft injured FS in Bob Sanders. And yet Dungy has gotten alot out of those three players. Now you lay the Colts playoff failures on Dungy but let's look at facts. The 2003 AFCCG in New England, it was Peyton Manning NOT Tony Dungy who threw 4 asinine interceptions. Yet at the end of the game down 21 - 14 the game and the ball was in Mannings hands. It was Manning NOT Dungy who failed to execute in the clutch. The next year it was Manning NOT Dungy who could not get Indy into the endzone against New England. 2005 against Pittsburgh the COlts defense gave Manning a gift at midfield. It was Manning NOT dungy who made bad decisions that last drive that not only prevented a touchdown but also made it more difficult for that goof Mike Vanderjaght to make a FG ( which he missed )
2008 San Diego it was Manning NOT Dungy who tossed 3 interceptions. Even when the Colts won the Superbowl it was not BECAUSE of Peyton Mannning. It was because the O line and the running game dominated 4 straight opponents. In fact, in the AFCCG in the RCA Dome the Colts had to overcome that incredibly bone headed INT that Peyton threw to Assante Samuel that nearly sealed the the Colts fate. I credit Dungy for not panicking at halftime. If he had decided to go pass wacky in the second half the Colts would have lost that game and lost it badly. ( side note: Manning that playoff year threw 8ints to 4 touchdown passes. )

My point is, while Dungy is no genius he is a very good coach who has his teams in position to win each and every year. Once a team gets an opportunity it is up to the players to execute. His teams are solid, tough, resilient and no nonsense. He is another coach I would take for my team in a heart beat.

167
by bob (not verified) :: Thu, 01/01/2009 - 4:49am

And none of those interceptions had to do with pressure based on knowing that he HAD to score or watch another 15 minute running drive by the opposition. Manning didn't change when he won the super bowl, Dungy just finally came up with a defense that could be average when needed.

137
by Chris (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 2:42pm

I'd expect to find the " Dungy changed the losing culture" argument on ESPN or CBS Sportsline but not FO. You are naturally going to "change the losing culture" when your GM hands you one of the best LB's of all-time, one of the best defensive tackles of his era, one of the best safeties of his era, and numerous other pro bowlers at key positions, Simeon Rice, Rhonde Barber, etc. etc. etc. Having 7 or so of your 11 defenders pro bowl caliber will tend to change a losing culture.

Tony Dungy didn't invent the cover 2, he just started playing it a little bit differently. In a normal cover 2 ( a pretty cookie cutter basic defense) the offenses will attack the gap in the middle of the field behind the MLB, and the sidelines behind the coverbacks front zones. It isn't like he invented the zone bliz, the 46 defense, or some of the more complex offensive philisophies, it is just that in the most basic defensive coverage they positioned their chess pieces a little bit differently. With all the talent they had, running any defensive scheme would have probably had much success. Monte Kiffen is a stud DC and he doesn't always run the cookie cutter cover 2.

You can argue what you want about Dungy and it would be impossible to prove, but I strongly believe in a 1 game playoff setting, that Gruden is a better X's and O's guy that could out game plan Dungy with equal talent. Gruden winning the SB with " Dungy's stacked team" would support that theory. If you would remember back 5-10 years ago, Tampa had a very formitable team that many kept picking to win it all ( especially the year they aquired Brad Johnson), but they kept losing to Philly in the playoffs.

When Dungy got fired, people bashing him like Andy Reid or Marty would have been bashed ( they can't win the big game), people were saying that him being fired was very unfair. Dungy got the dream job in Indy with a young superstar QB/WR combo and strong GM who brought in Edge and other talent to create that offensive synergy for years go come. Dungy the defensive genius talk slowly but surely dissapeared. People talked about the Tampa 2 that he made famous like it was some voodoo unfair scheme that he ran that maximized his players talent much the way people talked about the West Coast offense.

I also don't buy the Colts allocated all their money to QB, WR, RB argument so that Dungy had no talent. Dungy was given a disproportionated percentage of his low round draft picks going towards his defense. The offense was fine, the Colts kept funneling resources towards the defense ( and in particular the back 7.

The offense was built to score points with the greatest QB of all-time and the defense was built to protect leads. They invested heavily in speedy DE's and CB's that could cover the pass and pressure opponents who were trailing and throwing a lot of passes. Freeney's spin/rush passer at all costs even on running downs was comical. The guy would spin right out of run plays and give up gashes of 7 yard runs. That team speedy (pass orietned) defenese that was built to protect leads the offense created, was getting gashed on the ground to comical proportions. Nobody was calling Dungy a genius anymore, many people made excuses for him ( all the money was spent on offense etc.) People started seeing Dungy as a head coach more than a defensive guy because the defenses stunk.

I don't think Dungy is a genius and I don't think he is a very good game planner in a playoff setting. I see him running ultra conservative stuff and expecting the players to win for him ( that is fine if you clearly have the best team, but what if you don't), I don't see them trying anything out of the ordinary or ever going out on a limb ( like Bellicheck running a 2-5 defense in the SB vs Buffalo or running a dime defense as his base defense vs the Rams.

Watching him get outcoached by Jeff Fischer is comical. Like the game where the Titans were in a tie game going to attempt a questionable long field goal with 10 or so seconds on the clock. If Bironas missed the kick, the Manning would have a change to complete a pass and give his kicker a chance to win, so Fish threw out his punting unit. The sudden change of heart threw Dungy off and he didn't have a returner back there and called a time out. Now that Manning wouldn't have a reasonable chance to complete a pass to get into FG range with no time out if Bironas missed the FG, Fisher sent the kicker to attempt the long improbable FG. Fischer psyched out Dungy and once again beat him with a less talented team. I mean, Dungy didn't even understand what was at stake by wasting that time out, a risk free chance for Fischer to win and he did.

You can say that Manning didn't win the Bears SB, that his line and RBs did, but the QB is very responsible for his line play when he calls the right audibles. It is the most underrated concept that people don't understand and I pound the table with it. Being able to property identify pressure and call proper blitz pick ups and knowing your hot routes has nothing to do with how quick your linemans feet are. Chaning a pass to a run when you see a 7 man front has nothing to do with how strong your lineman are as run blockers when your QB puts them into a better situation. And finally, when the other team is so scared of your QB's arm and playing "back" on defense, the QB that hits his running backs in the flats has little to do with the RB, but the defense respecting the QB's arm/ability to read the defense.

139
by Mr Shush :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 2:49pm

Dice - Um, seriously? You would want Charley Casserly running your team? You do realise he had nothing whatsoever to do with the Texans' 2006 draft, right? In 4 years of drafting in Houston, Casserly selected a grand total of 4 legitimate NFL starters - Andre Johnson, Dunta Robinson, Chester Pitts and Dom Davis. He traded up into the first round to take Jason Babin. He traded a 2 and a 3 for Philip Buchanon. He perpetrated monumental free agent busts like Todd Wade and Robaire Smith. The Broncos' 2006 draft had more value than all Casserly's Texans drafts combined.

I think firing Shanahan was a mistake - the most recent Bronco draft class we are in a position to sensibly assess looks like the best draft class by any team in the last decade, and the 2008 class looks pretty promising too. The bad drafting took place in the first half of this decade, not the last few years.

Martz would be a very interesting hire, and probably guarantee Cutler a place in the hall of fame, but rationally I think that hiring a top D-con - Rex Ryan, Spagnuolo or Schwartz - as head coach and leaving the offensive staff in place is probably the best way to compete for championships in the short term. Then again, you might be able to get Martz as a co-ordinator under one of these guys, and that ought to be a scary thought for the rest of the league.

edited because I originally named the wrong crappy 4-letter tackle beginning with W

138
by Tom Nawrocki (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 2:47pm

I think the idea that Shanahan was close to getting this team to the playoffs, or that he was always at least a .500 coach, is misguided. This year's Broncos had to be one of the worst .500 teams ever. In the worst division in football, they still needed a horrible officiating call and the Saints to think that Martin Gramatica was a legitimate NFL kicker to even reach 8-8. Put them in the AFC East or South, and they'd have been about 5-11.

140
by Chris (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 2:53pm

Tampa was a "losing culture", but all those high round draft picks they received eventually started blossoming into pretty talented players. The media liked Dungy and he had all sorts of positives written about him in Sports Illustrated and the " changed a losing culture" argument was one of them. It wasn't like he took over a bad team that kept drafting Joey Harringtons and Charles Johnsons, his team was bringing in the Sapps, Lynches and Brooks. The Bucs had so much defensive talent and they played on a grass ( slow field) that gave them that additive effect.

Also, when the Colts won the SB and the "defense emerged" look at all of the craptastic offenses they were playing, KC at home with a battered QB situation, Baltimore, Rex Grossman etc. I really would expect Manning to post weaker stats vs Baltimore in January, and the Bears on a rainy field while the defense played " better" when faced with weak offenses.

At least you admit that he is not a genius. I'd say that he is more like an average head coach that was blessed with two fantastic situations. He wouldn't have ever won in Tampa ( good seasons, lose in playoffs), but Peyton Manning got him over that hump in 2006. Yes, Manning, not the defense. He was the MVP of the super bowl and deserved it. If it weren't for him and the early Reggie Wayne strike, Rhodes/Addai wouldn't be open all game.

143
by perly :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 3:32pm

The defense that "emerged" for the Colts in the 2006 playoffs also went on to be the #3 DVOA defense in 2007 and #1 in scoring. In 2005, the Colts were 8th in DVOA, 2nd in scoring. Given the players they've lost, and let's recap:

Cato June
Mike Peterson
David Thornton
Marcus Washington
Nick Harper

and that's without being a Colts fan and without looking anything up--ALL of whom went on to be productive starters on elite defenses. I just don't see how you can look at that and say Dungy's an average coach. Average doesn't get you those numbers, and that's even if you leave out the cap and roster considerations.

141
by johonny (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 3:01pm

Unless they have a proven winner lined up, you have to think this was an odd panic move.

145
by Sean_C (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 3:59pm

Odd panic move...I'll buy that theory.

It could also be the "Ultimate Leader" has pretty much worn out his welcome. I have read that Shanahan can be somewhat arrogant/abrasive (although I read that about nearly every other head coach as well). Perhaps Bowen had to act or face a mass defection from the underlings within the organization...sometimes the peons DO wield influence.

Of course, Bowen may be personally fed up with Shanahan as well.

So...the decision may really have nothing to with Shanahan's HC/GM performance, which is unfortunate, because I don't think it was sufficiently poor to CLEARLY warrant his firing.

I can definitely see this as a panic and/or personality related move, though.

144
by Chris (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 3:52pm

Every team gains and losses players. The fact that they allocated so many high draft picks to defense doesn't mean that " All the resources were spent on offense". How does Tony Dungy get credit for Bill Polian drafting these guys anyway? David Thornton goes to start for the Titans elite defense so you are crediting Dungy why?

I think that the efficient and ball control offense the Colts had thelast few years ( rather than scoring lots of fast points earlier in Manning's career) helped the Colts defensive DVOA look better than they really are. I mean didn't they face one of the least number of opponents possessions?

Opponents would rather keep the ball, shrink the game, keep Manning on the sidelines, run the ball, keep the number of possessions down and try and win in Q4, then try and score score score quickly at all costs and get into shoot outs with Manning.

The Colts defense is build to protect leads and defend the pass, so why not go against the grain and run the ball on them?

148
by bravehoptoad :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 4:51pm

Dude, your arguments don't make any sense. What's your beef with Dungy, really?

For instance, look at these arguments, which don't stand up to a few seconds thought.

1) There have been plenty of solid starters on the Colts defense who went on to other teams and played liked crap. Do you want a list?

2) Number of possessions has nothing to do with DVOA score.

3) If opponents would rather run the ball to keep Manning off the field, then how does that make the defense look better if they're built to stop the pass?

It's like you're so pissed off at Dungy you're throwing any crap at the wall to see if it sticks. What gives?

172
by greybeard (not verified) :: Thu, 01/01/2009 - 9:53pm

This one is easy. Anybody who reads FO comments for a long time can easily answer this:
Dungy is black.

146
by Chow Yun-Dan (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 4:02pm

Have faith Bronco fans, this isn't the disaster many of you think it is. As a Steeler fan I was really sad when Chuck Noll stepped down. I told everyone that I thought they were going to bring in Tony Dungy, and when they hired Bill Cowher I had no idea who he was and thought they made a mistake. And when Bill Cowher stepped down I though for sure that Wisenhunt or Grimm would get the job, which they promptly gave to Mike Tomlin. Have faith that Bowlen knows how to run this organization and will make the right moves. And don't get hung up on getting a proven 'name' coach or the media flavor of the week. Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Atlanta and Miami all went with relative unknowns and it has worked out for them up to this point. Shannahan was a great coach, and he still may be, but, according to the owner, he is no longer the best option to coach the Broncos.

147
by perly :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 4:51pm

The Colts turned over 7 starters in two years between having the #1 and #2 scoring defenses in the NFL, and that's not counting the Booger McFarland experiment. Every team does not do that. Good teams do not do that, and it wouldn't surprise me much if no team had done that.

Tony Dungy has coached a team to the playoffs every year since, what? 1998? He's had one losing season in 13 years of coaching. He consistently fields defenses with late and undrafted players. His staff in Tampa has yielded two NFL head coaches with multiple playoff appearances.

There's simply no objective measure by which Tony Dungy can be judged anything like an average coach. That's just not what average means.

149
by ChicagoRaider (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 5:27pm

Shanahan wanted to be more than a head coach of the Denver Broncos. The record was that that was not working out. For whatever reason, things did not result in him getting a GM over him, who might steer Shanahan away from the defense.

Let's see if someone wants him as a GM. I am sure he could get a job as a head coach, but this seems to be a man who wants something bigger, wants something new. I can see him feeling that he does not have anything more to prove as just an offensive-minded head coach.

Oh, and the man probably can use a year off. Let him do TV for a year.

150
by Chris (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 5:40pm

Number of possessions has nothing to do with a DVOA score? Did the FO guys say that so it has to be true? So you belive that a defense that is on the field 40 minutes in a game is going to play to the exact same freshness as a defense that is on the field 20 minutes in a game? I mean on a per play basis is the same exact defense as good in the 4th quarter as it is in the 1st quarter? We would even be judging the same exact guys. You think that TOP has no effect on your per play abilities? Really?

If an opponent has the opportunity to attack your defense with 14 posessions instead of 9, that wouldn't help? Having all that extra time to plot, look at pictures, find out what's going on, and regrouping on the sidelines to attack your schemes a different way?

I am not saying the 2007 Colts defense was trash, you could see the improvement in them, what I am saying is that they had an over inflated tradional stats and DVOA thanks to the offense.

Brian Billeck certainly had a better Win/Loss record in Baltimore than he deserved from being the "offensive genius" that he was. If you looked at the stats and the SB ring, you could put together a pretty Dungyesque argument about how Billick was a good coach. I don't buy it.

I'm not pissed off at Dungy at all, I just see him as very average head coach that is very risk averse and doesn't go out on any limbs due to having all that talent. It just annoys me when people bring him up with Bellicheck, Parcells, Fischer, Schottenheimer or the truly great head coaches.

153
by b-rick (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 7:02pm

I wish they could have kept him as a coach and brought in a strong GM to balance the power. As others have said, him going to San Diego is THE nightmare situation for Bronco fans.

Ultimately it was Shanahan the GM who got Shanahan the coach fired with his futile and pathetic personnel decisions. With the exception of a few players, he brought in no young talent to build around from 1998 to 2005 to replace the '96 to '98 players. The result was a steadily declining team in terms of talent that SHanahan the coach was able to win with.

As a coach, Shanahan is one of the three best in the NFL along with Bellichick and Fisher. As a GM he is average at best. The last two drafts have been run by Goodman, which explains their success, especially 2008 which is their best draft since 1973.

154
by ChiJeff (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 7:28pm

Chris, I am confused about Dungy's situation in Tampa. You keep stating that Dungy had a great tackle, a great safety and a great linebacker in place. Now was that established before OR after Dungy got there? If after shouldnt Dungy get some credit for developing that talent? If those three players were
all pro's BEFORE Dungy got to Tampa( Brooks, Lynch and Sapp) why didn't the previous coaching regime get the job done? Sems to me, Chris, that it is real easy to look back in hind sight
and claim that Dungy had it made because the cupboard was stocked. But can you or anybody say that it was GUARANTEED that those three players were shoo ins to be all pro at the beginning of their respective careers? Or was Dungy the right coach at the right time for them at that stage of their careers.

You give a whole lot of credit to Peyton Manning and he deserves it but I notice how you are willing to overlook a lot of his playoff failures and foist those upon Tony Dungy. Peyton has not exactly been the greatest post season
qb and for all his greatness he has been VERY shaky in the post season the last two years. While you give him credit during the superbowl run for changing run plays to pass plays and pass plays to run plays, depending on how many players are in the box etc, shouldn't that be the minium required of competent quarterbacks? Or is that a way to overcredit Manning since he had a crappy post season that year.

To me Dungy has done his job in Indy. That job was to craft a solid defense that could make stops, get turnovers, sack the qb and keep the Colts in the game so that Manning could win it.

155
by Duff Soviet Union :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 7:56pm

ChiJeff, I think you are wasting too much time on Chris. Seriously, 95% of his posts are variations on "(white head coach/qb) is great, (black head coach/qb) is terrible". I'm sure he'll protest that race has nothing to do with this, but it's pretty obvious if you read enough of his posts.

158
by Chris (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 9:09pm

So if Dungy is a great coach then why is his job JUST to field a solid defense, make stops/sacks/turnovers ( whatever that means, isn't that every defenses objectives?). It sounds like basically you think that with Manning all he has to do is be average to win... That doesn't sound very genius to me.

Duff- So if somebody keeps saying that Byron Leftwhich and Michael Vick are highly overrated when everybody is pumping them... and ends up right, then they just must be some racist old white man huh?

180
by greybeard (not verified) :: Fri, 01/02/2009 - 10:56pm

Well,
When someone likes Alex Smith, but is not sold on any black QB, Donovan included, that says a lot.
BTW, Lots of people on FO message boards thought/wrote Vick was overrated, that he was a glorified running back and I cannot remember a single soul glamouring over Leftwhich. So don't award that "man with the wisdom" award to yourself yet.
But you are the only (well maybe Rich Conley too) that makes people think that your perception is colored with the skin color of the athletes you are commenting on fo all poeple who shared the same opinion about the Vick and Leftwhich.
Are you an old white man? That part is hard to guess from your posts.

162
by ChiJeff (not verified) :: Wed, 12/31/2008 - 11:02pm

Chris,

I never said that Tony Dungy was a " genius " or even a " great " coach. For my money he is one of the very good coaches in the NFL. A coach you CAN win a Superbowl with. If he can get a second title then I would upgrade him to " great " The same with Tom Couglin and Bill Cowher.

Now as far as the Colts go, let us understand the situation. Indy is a team that is built around the offense in general and Peyton Manning in particular. In the previous
regime, the defense had deteriorated to the point where it was a HUGE liability. Tony Dungy's job going forward was to craft a defense that was good enough to keep the Colts in games so that Peyton could win them. Every so often the defense can be counted on to win games by themselves, create turnovers etc. But more importantly get the ball to Peyton. And he has to do that on the cheap. Again, the Colts are a defensive team that is built around 2 very undersized D linemen and an undersized safety who is hurt roughly 60% of the time. The rest of the defensive talent is anywhere from marginal to above average. It is what it is. If Jim Irsay and Bill Polian want a 1985 Bears or 2000 Ravens defense then Bill Polian needs to get 1985 Bears/2000 Ravens type defensive talent into Indy.

In that regard, Dungy has suceeded. As a fan I can accept, while his defense in Indy can be effective, that it will never be dominant. The level of talent just will not allow for that. At least not in the traditional sense. But the defense more times than not has been effective. Many of those playoff losses for Indy has not been due to the defense. In many of those games the defense has gotten the ball to Manning in crunch time. In those games, in the critical moments, in career defining moments, the ball has been in Peyton Manning's hands. Not Tony Dungy's hands not the defenses hands. But in Peyton Manning's hands. And in the vast majority of those times Peyton Manning has come up short. ( By the way, not here to rip on Manning per se, he is a great player )

168
by chris clark (not verified) :: Thu, 01/01/2009 - 1:08pm

As a Broncos fan (since Lou Saban as HC and Floyd Little as star RB) living in NE for the last 25 years and now in AZ, I'm saddened to see Shanahan go, but understand why it must happen.

I do hope he gets another coaching spot, and I will probably root at least partially for whatever team he goes to, even if it is SD or KC, maybe not if it is DET unless he really turns it around. I think he is a genius, but perhaps not quite that much. Him coaching DAL or NYJ would be potentially very interesting, as I think he could give them a relatively instant SB shot. (It would be weird rooting for DAL, but at least I've mostly respected them.) A warrior is best known by his enemies. I wish Shanahan had coached in ATL during the Vick years, I think things might have turned out different for everyone had he done so.

I think his record speaks for itself. He is over .500 even since Elway. In the rock-paper-scissors years, he was very close to a SB appearance and perhaps even victory.

As to who should HC DEN, I think one of those let go DCs would be poetic justice. Personally, I would go for the one which brought in the Browncos. I think that was inspired and actually did work out for at least a year. I would not like Martyball, Martz, or Vermeil. I'd respect Parcell's enough to accept him. I wish Joe Collier weren't too old--I think he could really turn the defense around.

Whoever gets picked definitely needs more than a year to get things in their mold. I think the revolving door policy driven by wanting to get back to playoff glory too quickly has been the major issue. When they benched Plummer (and he retired) and then lost some key defensive players, it seemed that the team lost its way. Bringing Cutler along has worked, but I think the defense has been sacrificed in the process. I don't think it would have been if they had stuck with a single DC during those years. Switching DCs has only magnified the problem. Each DC seemed to want a different style and thus different talent, and you can't change talent and acquire a large mass of good talent at the same time, especially if the team's priorities are focused elsewhere.

173
by Max (not verified) :: Thu, 01/01/2009 - 10:34pm

joe collier? His inept "bend but don't break" defenses helped keep elway from winning 3 more super bowls. He must have had naked pictures of dan reeves because I have no idea why he stuck around so long. Also, no offense but you take the Dungy good or bad argument outside?

176
by chris clark (not verified) :: Fri, 01/02/2009 - 12:44pm

I'm not part of the Dungy debate and have no specific opinion on him, so no offense taken. That's a different "Chris".

As to Joe Collier, no question he had good talent: Carter, Gradishar, Alzado, Jackson all became famous. However, he formed the 3-4 out of necessity. He didn't have enough bulk to run a 4-3 defense. The fact that the defense carried the offense to its first SB is directly attributable to him in my opinion. It was he who recognized what his talent could do and how to use them rather than sticking to the conventional wisdom of the day.

Did he run that scheme too long? Perhaps. I don't think it was the defense's fault we lost the next 3 SBs. I think too much emphasis was put on offensive talent and then wasted with Reeves' boring play calling. (The same reason I hope Schottenheimer is not the next HC.) Your opinion is clearly different.

177
by Max (not verified) :: Fri, 01/02/2009 - 1:08pm

I can't comment on Joe Collier before Dan Reeves, a bit before my time. Due to my father's unbridled lifelong Bronocs passion, I can assure you I saw every Broncos game available in the mid to late 80s. [This became a sore point when it caused me to miss one of my 49ers games]. Anyhow, Dan Reeves' playcalling was pretty awful, and it is very possible that the bronocs just "didn't have the horses" overall to match up against NYG or Washington. [I won't rub in SB XXIV]. Still, I will continue to claim that Collier's defense was mediocre at best and was all too quick to revert to a prevent defense. Maybe it was personnel, maybe it was scheme, probably it was both. Regardless, I think we can both agree that the next broncos DC should not be Joe Collier.

169
by Chris (not verified) :: Thu, 01/01/2009 - 3:52pm

It is unfair to say that Dungy has " two undersized defensive ends. Both players have made the pro bowl, you don't need to act like Bill Polian cheated him by giving him two runt DE's.

The Colts defense is built to stop the pass. They don't care about their LB's, they invested in their DE's and they drafted lots of secondary players. Polian put together a group of players that will defend large leads in case Manning gets a 2-3 TD lead and those "speedy" yet undersized pass rushers will come after you.

I belive the coaches job is to win, and Dungy has done that, I can't fault him there. You say that his job is to provide an average defense so that his stud QB can win, and most coaches don't have that easy of a job. What if Romeo Crennel's job was to just provide an average defense so that HIS QB would win championships?

At least you can agree that Dungy isn't a genius or great, but I see him as average. I just get tired of the media types calling him genius, " he's one of the best", and saying there is nobody better than Dungy etc. etc.

171
by ChiJeff (not verified) :: Thu, 01/01/2009 - 8:37pm

I guess it is me but I never hear all this alleged praise heaped on Tony Dungy. I follow nfl media types pretty extensively and no one makes Dungy out to be able to walk on water or part the red seas. In fact, when he gets metioned at all it is more or less as an after thought.

To your points: 1) I did not say the undersized d ends were bad. That they made the pro bowl does not make them any bigger. At 6-2 245lbs Robert Mathias in particular is not your protypical FULL TIME d end. Most coaches would have him as a linbacker primarily. Generally most coaches would love to have more beef and girth along the Dline. 2) Dungy's job is not easier than other coaches. His job is to craft a decent defense knowing full well that he is never going to get stud talent on that side of the ball. Look at the " elite " defense in the league: Tenn, NYG, Pitt. Not only do they have excellent talent but they have quality depth as well. You are a Giants fan, they have lost 2 or 3 good lineman and they are STILL a great d. The Colts do not have that type of depth or talent.

174
by b-rick (not verified) :: Fri, 01/02/2009 - 4:12am

Joe Collier was a great defensive coordinator in the Ralson and Miller years. He is the first great 3-4 DC. The problem with running a true 3-4 (not the zone blitz 3-4 scheme you see today) is that the most crucial position is nose tackle and they are extremely hard to find. Rubin Carter was one of the best NTs ever and when he was there the defense was great. When they had to start putting regular guys @ NT (along with Gradishar's retirement) they became the bend but don't break defense of the 80s Bronco SB teams.

175
by Chris (not verified) :: Fri, 01/02/2009 - 11:19am

So is it easier to have the best QB ever and try to piece together an average defense or have a crappy QB and try and build a good O & D or decent enough team. So Dungy's situation/job is the same as Romeo's was in Cleveland or Wisenhunt in Arizona?

Dwight Freeney and Bob Sanders aren't elite players? Mathis isn't a pro bowler? I like Bethea too. People in the regular media outlets were claiming Sanders is the best defender in the entire NFL but Dungy doesn't have any star power?

Even 3 years ago when the Giants lost Strahan, Osi, and Justin Tuck to injury they finished as a wild card team in a 3 playoff team division ( very impressive). They were still going to the playoffs in their "heavy injury years" and this year they have been very healthy and they locked up the NFC's #1 seed. People want quick to call Eli a chock artist the year they lost to Carolina in the playoffs, but they were starting 2 linebackers literally off the street. Kevin Lewis wasn't good enough to make the team earlier that year, and he was a shell of his former self after a season of inactivity. They had to move a DE to linebacker just to have enough active LB's and even got run over by Deshaun Foster that game. The Giants have been a solid team ever since Eli's first year starting and have been very healthy this year.

The Giants are lucky enough to have gone through 2 very solid GM's, Ernie and Jerry.

179
by mrparker (not verified) :: Fri, 01/02/2009 - 4:44pm

If having a great offense makes a head coaches job easy

Don shula sucks.
Mike Shanahan is worthless.

I think arguing the merits of coaches is useless. If I'm hiring a head coach here is my criteria: Don't mess it up when we get the right mix of talent.

Chris writes good things about the Giants GM who is black so calling him a racist is a bit off base. I think he is more the kind of guy who hates when the media pumps up someone who has never done anything special.

I have to disagree with him on Dungy because I think he gets more done with less than anyone in football, but I can see his point about Dungy never winning the big one in Tampa Bay even if I disagree that Gruden is the superior coach. Gruden was better suited to beat Philly. However, now TB can't do anything. I would argue that TB is the team that Dungy built and Gruden beat PHilly with and then got to play his old team coached By Bill Callahan who wasn't smart enough to change his offensive terminology.

182
by speedegg :: Mon, 01/05/2009 - 1:02am

Maybe Shanahan should have found a defensive coordinator he liked OR maybe he should have stuck with Greg Robinson instead of firing him after the 2001 season.

Seems like defense was once the Bronco's strength, it's now a glaring weakness...of course going through Bob Slowik, Jim Bates, and Larry Coyer in three years doesn't help. While Shanahan was good on the offensive side of the ball, maybe he had trouble managing the defensive side of the ball. Which might explain why the owner finally decided to fire him.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
To skip this, please log in.