Let’s not forget that Bowlin was dumping 100’s of millions into this team every year. Every bone-headed personnel decision was coming out of his pocket. From Travis Henry and Javon Walker to Simeon Rice to trading up for Jarvis Moss, the money came out of Bowlin’s pocket and wasn’t bringing a return on his investment.

I think Bowlin looked at his company and asked if the people at the top (Shannahan) had a realistic plan for turning this around. When he realized they didn’t (just more of the same) he pulled the trigger rather than allowing the team to continue it’s downward spiral. Let’s face it, the Broncos weren’t getting better.

To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, winning isn’t a sometime thing; you don’t do thing right some of the time. You either commit to winning all the time or you’re committed to losing.

You amaze me, no offense intended. I wish I were that together when I was ahem younger.

Great job on the post, you have wonderful insight and talent at putting together your arguments.

It’s not that Shanahan had set up a herculean task for himself though, there were areas where he was clearly sub-standard, so it was his failing to meet normal expectations that come with any NFL team that tripped him up.

Much of what I have to say on this topic is hardly new — it’s the same thing I’ve said in the past and the information itself is well-known and has been stated in the media for years. Shanahan had a talent for offense, but he wasn’t good at evaluating talent nor was he competent at defense. The team that Shanny took over in 95 had a defense and Shanny was well served by the later DCs — Robinson and Coyer.

Shanahan’s, and staff’s, failure to rebuild in the post-Elway era doomed the team in the long run. Efforts to fix the defense, such as hiring Rhoades and later Bates, were attempts to address this organizational weakness in defense through scheme or coaching. The problem was talent, and the weakness didn’t fully emerge until the last few years when Al Wilson and others were no longer with the team. It was a lagged effect. Lagged effects are common but often go unrecognized because the cause and effect are separated by a long period of time. The coaches knew they had a problem on their hands, as is evidenced by their attempts to fix it, but the public was far less aware of it.

Arguments over ‘scheme V. personnel" are misleading. Scheme changes are often quick fix attempts, and they usually fail because they are reactions to a declining situation, and this usually means that talent is part of the problem. Denver’s change to run contain could have actually had a positive effect on the Broncos’ defense if the resources had been devoted to the defense. Denver was an overachieving/talent poor (relatively speaking) defense; not a dysfunctional, underachieving team, like many of the chronic losers who acquire massive amounts of talent through the draft but continue to underachieve. These teams are the ones who benefit from defensive/schematic overhauls.

The ‘scheme V. personnel’ debate is the ‘nature V. nurture’ debate. There never is a ‘nature’ without a ‘nurture.’ and vice versa, and scheme and personnel are likewise inextricably intertwined. Moreover, the missing element in this dichotomy — continuity — is like development, which is where the two aspects of nature and nurture take place. Quality teams develop talent under a scheme, so both adequate personnel AND coaching/scheme must be present in order to succeed, and a third element — continuity — is also necessary. All of these elements together provide a recipe for success.

Denver needed to bring a DC with complete control over the defense and give him input over the draft. They also needed a GM to make personnel decisions and arbitrate between the Shanahan and that DC. Shanahan could have remained as the head coach but he needed to relinquish the duties where he was weak. This is old news— actually — and there have been efforts to address these problems but they weren’t successful. No schematic or coaching changes could overcome the failure to draft and develop defensive talent during the ‘draft drought’ earlier in this decade. The players who would have normally ascended to starting roles after being cultivated within Denver’s system were missing. And when the veterans left there were no replacements.

——————————————————————————————————————————

Here’s an example of Denver’s success earlier in this decade:

LB: D. J. Williams (1st rounder), Al Wilson (1st rounder), Ian Gold (2nd rounder).

Not surprisingly, Denver was good at LB during this period, and there was some talent elsewhere on the defense, too.

——————————————————————————————————————————

Denver’s defensive talent from the draft:

2004
LB D.J. Williams (1)

2005
CB Karl Paymah (3a)

2006
DE Elvis Dumervil (4b)

2007
DE Jarvis Moss (1)
DE Tim Crowder (2)
DT Marcus Thomas (4)

2008
CB Jack Williams (4b)
DT Carlton Powell (5b)
LB Spencer Larsen (6)
S Josh Barrett (7a)

LB Wesley Woodyard* (CFA)

—————————————————————————-

I would argue that even the higher picks from 07 have yet to contribute, except for some contribution from Thomas, so you’re looking at a defense without ANY significant contributions from the draft, and not much from free agency either. And even the few talents, like Dumervil, a 4th rounder, could scarcely be expected to make this into a quality defense. This is NOT a recipe for defensive success. We have some other talents of note: Champ, Bly, EE, ‘berger,’ but — again — this is hardly enough to produce a quality defense since the numbers aren’t high enough to adequately staff a defense.

Denver needed to address these shortcomings but didn’t in any meaningful way. It’s probably a credit to Denver’s staff that they were able to do as well as they did considering how little talent had been brought in. The last few years of revolving door changes in scheme merely masked a severe deficiency.

I learned a lot from looking at the decision this way, and I think your observations are astute. Shanahan had so much on his plate that it cut into his job performance in every area just a little bit. But in this league, a little bit is more than enough to dramatically affect the final product on the field. We saw it in the lack of motivation on the part of the players, the head-scratching approach to defensive scheming, the personnel blunders. We need a more diversified structure with a coach who coaches and a manager who manages, and there was simply and quite obviously no way to retrace those steps and reduce Shanny’s role once he’d been given the keys to the kingdom.

growing up my dad always told me not to make decisions or talk when emotions are in control. With that being said, I’ll wait another day or so before making an attempt at an intelligent comment regarding this coaching move.

Happy New Year MHR!! Not feeling much like a party this year so it’s not much fun at the Bok residence this new year!

..regarding the post. I don’t think the Sundquist firing was such a bad move. With the arrival of the Goodmans, we saw a draft that was excellent, and I looked forward to the upcoming draft for the defense.

I think the removal of Sundquist was supported heavily by Bowlen. One of his major points was that the personnel department would stay intact, so PB is obviously happy with that side of the business. I always questioned what Ted actually did anyway.

This was interesting:

SHanny wore TOO many hats and was multi-skilling too much. This led to a drop in productivity across the board, and really effected his job as HC. It is unacceptable for our team to be under prepared for 6 games we should have won. It was unacceptable the hires he made. It was unacceptable the defense that he put on the field. This was due to him doing a mediocre job in all phases of his MASSIVE job description. "

I was watching the 1985 Bears as they set all kinds of records that lasted a long time. After the Super, the offense carried Ditka on their shoulders and the D carried Buddy Ryan. The two exchanged looks that would have scorched the paint off a car. Sheer hate.

Ryan went to Philly where he tanked – Ditka stayed in town and tanked. Point is, Ryan in particular was a defensive genius (Ditka at that point a good motivator, but not a genius). Ryan moved a step above his knowledge level and wasted a fine career.

Shanahan was never content to be what he was – one of the best offensive minds in the NFL. He needed to be everything, and no one is. There is a quote on one of our threads from Peter Drucker, who systemized ‘management’ in the 1950s. Both he and Tom Peters (and, I’m sure, many others) preached vehemently – find what you’re great at and let others do what you’re not. Shanahan couldn’t do that, and it’s cost the Broncos.

That said, I’ll always admire, like and respect Mike, but it’s a lesson I’m sure Pat B has learned.

I love Shanny, but unfortunately, he set himself up for mediocrity.
I AGREE. A GREAT LEADER SEES HIS FAULTS AND STRENGTHENS THOSE WITH THE ACQUISITION OF OTHERS FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE TEAM.
Whos your pick for coach, Doc?

Taking much of the love/hate emotions of the typical fan out of the post enabled your post to get many well thought out responses. I wonder what the future holds for the GM/HC positions? With Holmgren stepping down, the Shanahan firing and Parcells moving on last year, it seems like another cycle of separate GMs and HCs will be initiated.