Shanny: Has The Check Been Cashed?

by broncodude793 on Dec 27, 2007 2:00 PM MST in News

The year is 1996. The Denver Broncos are favorites to win the Super Bowl. We go into a game against Jacksonville confident that we will advance. But then, the unthinkable happens. We lose. The short future looks bleak for our elderly quarterback who has fought for 14 years to grasp onto the Lombardi trophy only to fail so many times. But then...

The Mastermind strikes.

Over the next two seasons, he performs the best coaching job that he has ever done by guiding the Denver Broncos to two consecutive Super Bowl wins. All of Denver is celebrating as the beloved John Elway has finally won not 1, but 2 rings. Everyone is happy right? Although Elway is going to retire, we still have Davis right? He'll be able to carry us? And the defensive vets who retired like Atwater were slowing anyway and could be replaced, right? Wrong. The real coach of that team was John Elway.

Now granted, Shanny is the one who made the offense, but have you ever watched the tapes of the glory years? Mike was ALWAYS asking John what he thought they should do and they did it. It was literally John's offense. He controlled it. If Shanny was the Mastermind, how could he have not modified this system to fit Griese, Brister, Beuerlein, or Plummer or any of the other guys we have had to where we could win the SB?

I would have to say that our running game going down in the form of TD hurt us, but as you have seen, we can run the ball. But, here is the problem. We have NEVER had a feature back since TD who can control a game. Mike is scared of that because he knew that Elway and TD were the soul of that team and without them, we were toast because they were the ones guiding the team.

As I look back on it, hardly being able to remember the SB's(younger side, not older) one thing remains persistent in my mind. We blatantly violated the salary cap. With that, I can not totally say we won fairly.

Yet, Shanny has done several good things:
1. We did become respectable again
2. He gave us Cutler
3. He gave us Bailey
4. We have been a contender
5. We do have a future
6. Stabilized the franchise

Now we are all aware of the last 5 years or so's happenings so I won't detail that. It's all kind of a wash. If you counter in these last 2 seasons, is he losing "it"? Historically, age 55 is the year a coach will start to decline. (Not the Walsh's or the Lombardi's of the world)

It has been 10 years since the SB's. Guru says TD's check has been cashed. If his has been, then why hasn't Shanny's? It is up to Bowlen, yes, but the real question is:

Should Shanny stay or should he go? I will not provide my insight to this, but as I have said above, there is an argument for sides whether it be with the rings, or if it was the players, or if he's failing. It deserves consideration.

What do you guys think?

Tweet Comment 14 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Factually Inaccurate, At Best.

You're right; Shanny did not win the Super Bowl with "Griese, Brister, Berlin, or Plummer or any of the other guys we have had". That's a good and fair poi...

...wait,

DID YOU ACTUALLY READ THAT LIST?!?!?! You expect anyone to do anything with that laundry list of QBs??? The fact that he turned some of those guys into Pro Bowlers speaks volumes, my friend!

You're also quite sage in pointing out that "We have NEVER had a feature back since TD who can control a game."

...well,

except for that Clinton Portis guy, right? I mean, he was pretty good, no? Otherwise why did the Redskins give us the best corner in football, in his prime, for him in a trade?

I'm tired of poking holes in this, but I'll leave you with a simple series of questions: what's the success rate with switching head coaches? What would the turnover window be? Who would you get? Are you being serious and realistic? Now, do you still want to pull the trigger?

by ejruiz on Dec 27, 2007 2:53 PM MST reply actions

he was not the best at the time

that would be Ty Law at the time and why did we trade Portis? Off the field and attitude counts too.

Griese and Plummer were very good talents along with Brister and Berlin who did some things well.

I refrain from saying my position as it's my post.

"Hearts were broken in Chicago...Balls taken in Oakland. Yech!" -mdierk "Finally, nothing left to play for!!! Give em hell boys." -styg50 12/2/07

by broncodude793 on Dec 27, 2007 3:25 PM MST reply actions

Seriously?

Portis might have had attitude problems, but he was exactly the sort of elite/dominant back you claimed we haven't had since TD. The fact that he was flawed off-the-field just gives credit to the fact that Shanny turned him into an elite CB with a great personality in a trade.

As for Champ, he went to half of his Pro Bowls while in Washington and only missed going to Hawai'i as a rookie. You ask anyone in football who they'd rather get in 2004, I'm pretty sure they'd pick the 26-year-old stud going into his prime over Law, even if he was technically better at the time.

As for the QBs, what does their track record look like elsewhere. What was Plummer before he came to Denver and what has Griese done since he left? Same goes for Brister and Berlin, really. Seriously man, don't be ridiculous. Blame him for relying on those guys, not for failing to win with them, because the latter is impossible.

I give Shanny, as well as all of his assistants, until the end of the 2009 season. If we aren't contenders by that time, then they can all walk. Until then, let's be realistic about what we have: a bunch of babies on offense and half a defense. Give Bates time to bring in his guys and teach him the sysytem. Give Cutler and the boys more time to grow as individuals and together. Give them time to build the depth of the roster and strengthen the special teams. By good, people, we're rebuilding on the fly and their are plenty of established powers in our league; we're not going to win right away!

by ejruiz on Dec 28, 2007 7:51 AM MST up reply actions

Quote of the Day Award

"A bunch of babies on offense and half a defense."

Well said.

And we still amnaged to make a few games competetive this year....

by Jeremy Bolander on Dec 28, 2007 5:29 PM MST up reply actions

I will say this

I am one of those people who says Shanny stays until he wants...If anyones to go I say its Ted Sunquist...Also I hate Jim Bates and his Defense dont like never will bring in a 3-4 guy...Shanny was hoping for a TD like runner with Henry but he hasnt done crap since his pot head issue so that failed...Shanny has not failed it is the players and the Defense...Next year we should be around 10-6 tops and maybe a playoff appearence...Other than that im out..

Baby TO My new Fav Player

by TommyTSlice on Dec 27, 2007 7:11 PM MST reply actions

Those tapes...

also show Shanny draw up a few "genius" plays from scratch (ala the TD pass to Rod in the 2nd SB victory that essentially blew the game open for us). I also remember an instance where Shanny's like "John, we can do blah X route Z fade Y, or we can do blah blah blah" and Elway's like "Wow......"; hehe, not the most coach-like / tactician-like response from our most beloved QB of all time.

This is also something I noted whenever I see people say how Kub's was the sole reason the Denver offense was so potent. People say that all the time these days, but I always seem to remember seeing those tapes showing Shanny making the calls and in control with respect to calling plays.

Granted, the tapes want to show the highlight reels, but still...

by tunga77 on Dec 27, 2007 9:14 PM MST reply actions

Guys,

I'm short on time here as I can't think straight, but how much do we miss Kubiak?

"Hearts were broken in Chicago...Balls taken in Oakland. Yech!" -mdierk "Finally, nothing left to play for!!! Give em hell boys." -styg50 12/2/07

by broncodude793 on Dec 28, 2007 8:15 AM MST reply actions

Finally, Somethng We Might Agree On!

I'm glad that Kubes got his shot and is making the most out of it, but it certainly hurts to lose a coordinator of that caliber.

by ejruiz on Dec 28, 2007 9:43 AM MST up reply actions

How much are we going to miss Turner?

It won't be long before our running backs coach (technically our O-coordinator) gets an offer to go be a real offensive coordiantor somewhere else, probably some team that wants to ressurect its running game (ATL? STL? KC?!?!?!?!).

by Jeremy Bolander on Dec 28, 2007 5:35 PM MST up reply actions

One comment in defense of my man Dude.

I'm a Shanny supporter, and remain so this year. So I disagree with Dude on that. But Dude makes one point in an oblique way that may seem easy to dismiss but I think he is correct on.

Clinton Portis was a terrific back, BUT he didn't fit our system. He was never a one cut runner, and the natural abilities he had made him look good despite his misfit for our system of zoneblocking. I admire Portis (on the field, not off). But he wasn't a long term answer for us, so in a major sense I agree with Dude's assesment of him. He has been inconsistent for WAS, but is terrific when he's doing well.

I thought the trade to Washington for Bailey was brilliant. Using one cut runners in a committee system saves us money, and we can trade them when they get pricey. It is part of the brilliance of Shanahan that we can do that.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe

by Steve Nichols on Dec 28, 2007 10:00 AM MST reply actions

No omniscience allowed

Portis was where we learned just what type of back was ideal for our system. You'll never know till you give it a try, and they tried.

And yes, Clinton for Champ = One of the best trades ever.

by Jeremy Bolander on Dec 28, 2007 5:38 PM MST up reply actions

Now the argument goes back to personel

if you are arguing about Portis. He didn't fit our system and he wanted more money. Plus (am imagining this? If I am, sorry) I think he had some sort of sternum injury? Or am I thinking of Mr. Fumbles?

Portis would have gotten injured rather quickly in our system once Shanny learned he was more of a finese guy than a power guy.

"Hearts were broken in Chicago...Balls taken in Oakland. Yech!" -mdierk "Finally, nothing left to play for!!! Give em hell boys." -styg50 12/2/07

by broncodude793 on Dec 28, 2007 12:08 PM MST reply actions

Point by point

He didn't fit our system.

He did want more money.

I don't recall if he had an injury issue.

We knew from the start that Portis was a finesse runner and not a power runner. Shanahan was fine with that. We don't have to have a power guy (though that is nice). We need one cut, whether power or speed. We thought Portis was a one cut guy, but in the pros he juked an awful lot and had incredible vision for finding lanes. Unfortunately this runs the risk of looking good, but not working out over the long term. We HAD to have a one cut runner that ensured consistency.

In an ideal world we committee one power guy and one speed guy.

Again, I vote to keep Shanahan. But I support your proposition that Portis never belonged with the Broncos (despite being a terrific back). The problem was minimized when we traded him and got Bailey. Bailey has been a bigger impact for us than Portis for WASH.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe

by Steve Nichols on Dec 28, 2007 12:23 PM MST up reply actions

I say keep Shanny

It doesn't make any sense to replace him, that would take many years EVEN IF the next coach was as capable as Shanahan. He just needs to keep drafting better, like the last 2-3 drafts, then we will be ready to be contenders again.

by Arctic Bronco on Dec 28, 2007 8:08 PM MST reply actions