I am not sure which poor decisions you’re talking about, Claus. Every team misses on players. It’s true that the Broncos’ draft run between 2002 and 2004 was pretty bad. But let’s see the forest through the trees, here. Mike Shanahan has always been in charge of personnel, since arriving in 1995. Sundquist assisted him, as the Goodmans and Brian Xander are doing now, but it’s still Shanahan’s call.

The media loves to kill him for taking Maurice Clarett, but I liked the risk at the time, and I still think it made sense to give it a shot. All that was lost was a supplemental 3rd round pick, the last pick of that round. Maybe you didn’t like the the Javon Walker trade or Travis Henry signing, but nothing of consequence was lost there either. (The guy picked with the 37th pick in 2006, Jimmy Williams was just released by the Falcons a couple weeks ago.)

If you look at the roster now, there is a lot of good, young, homegrown talent, drafted over the last 4 years, and that is a credit to the successful drafting of Mike Shanahan. If Darrent Williams were still alive, he would join Cutler, Marshall, Scheffler, Dumervil, Marcus Thomas, and Ryan Clady among guys who have clear Pro Bowl ability. Add in others like Foxworth, Royal, Crowder, Jarvis Moss, and Selvin Young, who appear to be (or be likely to become) very good NFL players, and it looks even more clear that a young foundation has been laid down, that will give our team a chance to compete for championships in the near term.

All right, I started out using this equation, and trying to pin down the differences.

Oakland is a perennial looser. Denver is a perennial winner.
Davis is a loser in court and on the field. Bowlen has fashioned a winning franchise. Shanahan brought it to greatness.
Al Davis insists that none of his coaches be an effective leader. Bowlen insists that his will.
Bowlen and Shanahan have changed the face of the franchise to achieve greatness. Davis, rather than Davis and Kiffen, has maintained the insanity of that status quo.

Really, making this comparison may not be fair to either side. Although this is a great place to start a discussion (thanks, Claus!), simply noting that there is an owner and a head coach in each franchise doesn’t really tell us anything.

How are decisions made? Prior to Shanahan, we have Reeves, and Wade Phillips. Neither fit Bowlen’s mode so he went out and got Shanahan, noting that not only had Shanahan been a consistent winner, but that his relationship with Elway was so good that it upset Reeves. At this point, we should see a relationship from Bowlen to Shanahan to Elway on the Denver side, but there’s not much to put on the Oakland side. The equations have not been equal.

Shanahan completed a process started before him, and two Super Bowls were won. Finding a franchise QB to replace Elway was (not surprisingly) very difficult. They came close with Plummer, but Shanahan (and, we assume, Bowlen, but I don’t have any inside info as to the facts) believed that Plummer was not the final answer. Plummer promptly retired, suggesting that Shanahan may have been right, and the Broncos move up to identify and draft Cutler.

During this same time, Oakland stank. There have been constant changes of head coaches, coordinators, and staff. Oakland has, accordingly, had lots of high draft picks, but an air of mystery remains about the identification of needs and appropriate paying of those needs. In other terms, I recall that HT has pointed out that if you pay a lot for a few players, you don’t have much to pay the rest (I’m paraphrasing, perhaps badly). The year will show who did better in drafting and free agency, but the path taken by each franchise has differed tremendously.

In between Elway and Cutler, Shanahan still maintained a 60.2% winning percentage. Looking at how Griese and Plummer did in other locations, this is amazing. On the Oakland side – oh, never mind. You get the point.

Oakland now has a pretty good coach who is reputed to be again on a hot seat. They have a new franchise QB who might turn out well. And they have Al. Good old Al.

I don’t mind a spirited discussion, and your point is well taken. When people hold the reins of power, how will they react, and what choices will they make? Still, I’m lost as to the real equivalence here.

We’ve described Shanahan’s accomplishments in detail here at MHR, but if we go back further and look at Bowlen’s, the pattern seen has been a steady attempt to win, win at the highest level, and to make the changes that are seen (rightly or wrongly) to be needed and to make them. Overall, the statistics speak for themselves.

Claus, thank you for brining up this interesting concern, and all the best to you.

Before making a major personnel decision, everyone must be on board. True, there isn’t anybody to stop Shanny from making a decision if he really has his heart set on it, but how likely is it that he will make a decision in which the risk outweighs the reward? SWhanahan knows that he has advisors and assistant coaches who can and will readily help him make a decision on a player or coach.

Besides, Mike didn’t become the winningest head coach since 1995 for no reason. I have no doubt that before he makes a decision, he makes sure they will fit the system, watches tape, and does in-depth character analysis before even partially making up his mind. I think you have nothing to worry about.

The key difference is that Davis makes up his mind and it is done. Coach Shanahan takes input from several sources, makes a decision, and goes with it until proven wrong. The key words are “takes input”. In addition, Coach Shanahan will admit errors and then correct them. Your point about absolute power are well taken. I see Davis as more of an absolute dictator and Shanahan as a benevolent king.

Claus, it seems you’re concerned, for the most part, about change. Can a team adapt to new situations, or will it stagnate and become irrelevant.

The problem oakland has with Al Davis in charge is stagnation. In the 70’s and 80’s, Al’s methods were still new, and the team won because of them. Then the league changed, and rather than adapt, the raiders have stuck with the same MO. Now, they border on irrelevance. Coaches are not around long enough to fully implement a system, develop the talent in that system, and win. A few years (sometimes less), and if the results aren’t perfect, the coach is gone. The stagnation is at the very top of the franchise, and it cannot be moved.

On to Denver, where Mike Shanahan has nearly full control of the team. He has a boss that fully supports him…but a boss none-the-less. If Shanahan were to grossly mis-manage the team, there is someone who can fire him. The Broncos were dominant in the early years of Shanahan’s tenure, but slipped a few notches after the Super Bowl rosters started to move on. I would share concern if no adjustments were ever made…but Shanahan has made several major changes to the team. First was a marked improvement in drafting over the past several years, with the crown jewel of moving up for Jay Cutler. Last year, the Denver experienced the Grand Bates Makeover…to very poor results. It was an attempt to win now, and it failed…so instead of sticking with the system, Shanahan again shook things up by going back to a system that at least has a chance of working. Finally, since the departure of Gary Kubiak, the Broncos have brought in several new offensive minds with the goal of updating the system.

None of that sounds like a power structure sitting on it’s laurels, letting the team stagnate. :o)

I think the pint you are trying to make is a good one, but hard to put into words. The issue with you isn’t so much “Is Shanahan unworthy of trust” as many are taking it, but instead “Should any man have this much trust?”

In this case, I think the answer is yes. Here’s where I am coming from. Bowlen has shown that he puts trust in someone until they screw up. Shanahan has proved two things. First, he doesn’t screw up very much at all, and second, he’s willing to adapt when mistakes are made.

In the case of Davis, he micromanages his coaches and has nothing to show for it. I firmly believe that if Shanahan ceased to merit the position of both head coach and manager, then Bowlen would step in. As things stand, Bowlen probably believes (correctly) that Shanahan is probably the best coach / manager that can be found.

that you agree with the following idea, Claus?

Absolute power corrupts absolutely

In other words, is your major concern that regardless of what decision making context shanny and bowlen have established, the notion that shanny has absolute control of the franchise is a scary thought to you?

If so, there are several premises that could be in error, that if corrected could set your mind at ease:

1)Shanahan does not have absolute control. Bowlen is an astute and successful businessman who works with shanny. Shanny’s staff answers to him and is handpicked, but they are not “yes” men. That Shanny’s decisions are given the most weight within the organization is a consideration that holds true only so long as the staff and organization that surrounds him do not find inconsistencies or contradictions in his approach. Sundquist has stated how he did not agree with some of Shanny’s ideas (he wouldn’t state which ones, however), but in the final analysis, Bowlen and the Broncos staff agreed with shanahan’s approach to whatever the issues were. No one forced them to agree, they just felt like one course of action was more sensible and they chose it—and now sundquist is gone. Shanahan’s decisions will continue to be held in high regard, right or wrong, until he shows that he no longer is basing them on solid principles.

2)The notion that absolute power corrupts absolutely is a bromide, that is, a poetically lyrical saying meant to sum up a broad generalization. What it achieves in emotional impact it loses in clarity and accuracy. While it is true in some cases, I don’t know that it would be an accurate guide for deciphering the nature of the position that Shanny occupies. There is simply zero chance that shanny will make a mistake because he has the power of final say. He can, and will, make mistakes for a variety of reasons, from not evaluating a player correctly or calling the wrong play in a critical situation, but it won’t be because he has the final say, it will simply be because he made an error. Being in the position he is in doesn’t make him prone to those errors in my opinion.

I need to get a life. I just finished my 14,000th free cell game…this year.

I get that your concern is about process, rather than equivalency Claus. It’s always interesting to consider how things can go wrong. Still, consider this quote from Lombardi at si.com -

In an interview with the St. Petersburg Times, Warren Sapp gave a vivid description of his time with the Raiders: “As dark as a black hole,” he said. “Stuff went on in that organization that shouldn’t go on in sports. I don’t think there’s one person who knows who or what is making the call. Let’s just say the Oakland experience is unique. The phone rings quite a bit on that sideline. Insubordination is grounds for termination in any company.” Having worked in that “black hole” for eight years, I know exactly what Warren is talking about. And those calls to the sideline are from one man and one man only. At times I have been the reluctant messenger on a few of them myself. They are never pleasant.

Imagine the odds of Shanahan taking Bowlen’s calls on the sideline and meekly calling the plays he demands.

Nah :)