Dennison's Real Interview

by SethGrandpa on Jan 6, 2009 2:00 PM MST Comment 23 comments

As you all know Rick Dennison interviewed for the head coaching opening today. I think it's safe to assume he's not going to get the job. So why even bring him in for an interview? Good faith? To have an internal candidate? Why?

My most likely theory is this...he was interviewing to keep his current job.

If you're anything like me, you see that bringing in an offensive head coach would be entirely absurd. To overhaul an offense that finished 2nd in the NFL is crazy. Sure, they were not as efficient scoring as they should have been, but the offense is also full of young players and couldn't keep a RB healthy.

Why bring in a coach from a less successful offense? Have the Broncos not learned anything from the failure of other coaches from the Pats family in places like Cleveland and Notre Dame? Are the Broncos really going to look at a coach from Dallas who is less qualified than Bates and couldn't even keep his offensive players' egos in check?

What is needed is a defensive overall starting at the top, all while keeping people like Dennison and Bates in place. That's where Dennison's interview comes in.

If he's a realist he knows that he's not the frontrunner for the job. What his goal should be is to make a case that the offense is fine and if he's not going to be the head coach then the Broncos should go with a defensive coach.

Is it traditional to lobby for candidates other than yourself? No. But again, an offensive head coach means that he the current offense staff are out of a job. Is it wrong to sell out part of your team and it's coaches? Not in this case, because the defensive coaches are going to be history regardless of what goes down. Dennison can only look after himself.

So that's that. While media outlets will write, "Dennison interviews for Broncos HC job," what it really should read is, "Dennison interviews to keep Broncos offensive staff in tact."

I really hope you did well Rick. I really hope you did well.

This is a Fan-Created Comment on MileHighReport.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff of MHR

3 recs | Comment 23 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I didn't see it from this angle. Very insightful. Thanks!

I hope we go Defense for HC now.

This is my GAP, there are many like it but this one is mine. Without my GAP I am useless, without me, they will run through my GAP. I will protect my GAP and have my brothers back on his. I will not be moved from my GAP, I am a crazed dog that patrols this area and will defeat all who entire it. I own this GAP, it is mine. I bought it with blood and sweat. I will not be pushed. I will not be moved. This Sunday I will make a stand and a statement.

by Tim Lynch on Jan 6, 2009 2:14 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

Let's hope Dennison stays. But it would be a mistake to hire a defensive tactician.

Does anyone remember when the offensively dynamic Baltimore Ravens hired the offensive Dynamo Brian Billick from the Minnesota Vikings? When the offensively inept Bengals hired defensive genius Marvin Lewis from the Ravens? When the Broncos hired Wade Phillips on the strength of his great D’s?

A coach is more than an X’s and O’s technician. The point is to find a head coach who will hire people to straighten out the Defense, not to straighten out the D himself.

And look — Weis, Crennel and Mangini have struggled because they’ve been less-than-great coaches in less-than-great situations. They all worked for the Patriots. And Crennel and Mangini were hired by the kind of lousy owners who unimaginatively puruse coordinators from successful teams. The situations were less than ideal, and they’re not the best coaches.

It is a complete fallacy to argue that because Josh McDaniels is a coordinator for the Patriots, he wouldn’t succeed. What the other hires have established is that coaches hired from the Patriots don’t AUTOMATICALLY succeed, not that they CAN’T succeed. If a young John Gruden or Shanny were working for the Pats, would you really argue against hiring them, despite their obvious talents?

by Chibronx on Jan 6, 2009 2:20 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

I thought Wade Phillips was our own Defensive Coordinator back then and we just promoted him.

Sort of like what would happen if we promoted Rick Dennison this time around.

by Tim Lynch on Jan 6, 2009 2:29 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Right -- he was a defensively oriented coach who presided over a lousy D.

My point wasn’t that you shouldn’t promote your own. It was that a head coach’s work is very different from the work of a coordinator. Many coaches drawn from the defensive ranks have presided over defensively lousy teams. It’s a terrible way to choose a coach. You’re prioritizing defensive tactics over all oterh matters — and you can’t even count on getting results!

by Chibronx on Jan 6, 2009 2:32 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree that the new HC needs to be HC material..

and that is determined more from the stand point of being a good leader and judge of coaching tallent, as well as a good motivator, organizer and General. He then holds the captains, leutenants and sargents accountable for their soldiers actions.

It is better to keep silent, and appear to be wise, then to ramble on and remove all doubt! The Wisest Man.

by metalman5050 on Jan 6, 2009 2:40 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Ironically, the Bronco defense under Wade Phillips the Defensive Coordinator was pretty damn good....

however, the defense under Wade Phillips the Head Coach sucked really bad. Which is why we went 7-9 under Phillips even though our offense was scoring a lot of points. I would still like a hard nosed HC…don’t really care which side of the ball he is coming from. He just needs to be a hard ass who will toughen this team up a little. We cave like the cowardly lion to a bunch of flying monkeys.

by Tim Lynch on Jan 6, 2009 2:44 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree, ChiBronx...

There’s no question that we desperately need a defensive tactician, but I think that person should be the Defensive Coordinator, not the head coach. For HC we need someone with vision, leadership, and, sure, the ability to gameplan. Someone who can delegate and build trust from his coordinators and other coaching staff. Many fine coordinators have failed as head coaches because they didn’t have the right stuff. If Bowlen decides that McDaniels has more of the right stuff than Spags, I’ll be first in line to trust him on that…

"You're slow. You're not a running back, and you're not a running back for a reason." ---a former mastermind head coach....

by Broncs Cheer on Jan 6, 2009 3:37 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

"That’s what the Denver Broncos are…we want to win championships, and I think we will in the near future. I’ll always be a part of that."
- Former Broncos Coach and Future HOF Mike Shanahan, 12/31/08

by Colorado_Kitten on Jan 7, 2009 12:14 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Agree with Chibronx

and I will add that I don’t think an offensive coordinator that becomes head coach will automatically change overhaul the offense. He may, but it doesn’t neccessarily mean he will.

Was it hard? "It hurts. But tough times don’t last — tough people do. That’s life." - Mike Shanahan

by Steve O' on Jan 6, 2009 5:16 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Besides X's & O's

You need a H.C. who can manage the managers———who manage the game…..

by UB3 on Jan 6, 2009 2:36 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

Or Coach.. you get the point

by UB3 on Jan 6, 2009 2:39 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

Great, creative angle

nice work.

I hope so too…

Random quotes about the raiders:
They really shouldn’t play — Chris Collinsworth (12/5/08)
This is an utter disaster — Chris Collinsworth (12/5/08)
/The great Dane - formerly known as Claaaaas!

by Claus Vestergaard on Jan 6, 2009 2:39 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

I guess I don't really see it that way

I think Dennison is as viable a canidate as anyone that has been thrown out there, here are some things that Pat Bowlen has seemed to want and that is someone familiar with the organization (both Shanahan and Phillips were), and who has some new ideas on how to run things. The thing I think that Dennison has going for him is that he has been involved in all facets of the game, he played defense, he has coached ST and offense, and so I think from a technical standpoint, he brings a lot more to the table than some of the other canidates. The big question will be can this team relate to him as the unquestioned leader, which is something I think most of the canidates struggle with (except Cowher), but as far as the X & O I think he can do as the others mentioned or better, it will be a question of motivation and leadership, and I think Pat would have no need to interview him to have him keep his job, he isn’t doing that with Bates or Turner, I think it is a legitimate shot to impress the owner and I think he sees Dennison as a viable canidate.

"Me fail english, that unpossible" - Ralph Wiggum
"Duffman is thrusting in the direction of the problem" - Duffman

by Broncoman on Jan 6, 2009 2:48 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

+ 1

Is he the type who will, (perhaps with the help of Pat) be able to recrute some great coaching tallent on ST and the D, in order to turn the D around? And perhaps he would be “the Guy” more so in Pats mind, Who will be willing to work with a GM thus making the move away from the “Shanny full control” era? Just a thought. What do you think?

It is better to keep silent, and appear to be wise, then to ramble on and remove all doubt! The Wisest Man.

by metalman5050 on Jan 6, 2009 2:55 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

I was under the impression

that when all of the members of the current staff met individually with the front office. During Dennison’s meeting, he broached the idea of interviewing for the head coaching position and they agreed.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/05/broncos-dennison-will-interview-tuesday-morning/

by MattR on Jan 6, 2009 3:28 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

That is how I understood it as well

Him saying he “had some ideas” for the interview could go a long ways. Any guy who can talk to me about SPECIFIC ideas or plans or items will always have my ear over someone who talks in generalities or “ifs”, and I would imagine a lot of people, maybe even Bowlen, are the same way…

Concision in style, precision in thought, decision in life.

by Jeremy Bolander on Jan 6, 2009 3:35 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

which is why it is a bit unfair on spags (and other coaches int eh playoffs)

You cannot really expect him to be that prepared with specific ideas about each team he is interviewing for while he is also trying to get his current team prepared for a playoff game.

by MattR on Jan 6, 2009 3:38 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Right...but that kind of goes with the idea that he doesn't have much chance in my opinion.

I mean, he essentially put himself on their list, instead of being on it initially. Kind of like the person who invites themselves over to watch a game, it’s awkward to say, “No I’m gonna watch it alone,” especially when they live right down the street.

by SethGrandpa on Jan 6, 2009 5:04 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Anyone who thinks a 32 yrd old OC for the Patriots is qualified to be HC is simple minded. You can NOT make a case for an offensive minded HC, when it was D or lack of, that killed us. Is anyone paying attention...?

Please consider Rex Ryan. Nobody can say he’s toxic or a cancer. If he was, how the hell would he still be running the most aggressive, nasty, smashmouth defense in the NFL. His players love him, of course that means our players wouldnt because they dont know how to play defense. Enough about the players fitting the schemes…blah, blah,blah.

Schlereth said it best… “Denver has a collection of street veterans on defense”. Street veterans are players who would at best be special teams, but most likely on the street looking for a job. Except for a few, who could argue? People who talk about schemes and identitiy are the ones who have never played or dont know football. Its nothing more than useless verbiage…

"Attitude reflects Leadership" Hogblog...aka KSM

by Hogblog on Jan 6, 2009 5:35 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

The thing about Ryan is that the same thing was said about his dad

"Me fail english, that unpossible" - Ralph Wiggum
"Duffman is thrusting in the direction of the problem" - Duffman

by Broncoman on Jan 6, 2009 5:44 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

You said it yourself -- the D lacks talent. That's a backwards way to pick a coach.

McDaniels may or may not be the man for the job — none of us knows what he’s like in person or what his vision for a team is. But like you say, the D is full of street guys. Do you really want to pick your coach to address the here-and-now lack of talent on defense? Shouldn’t the vision be bigger than that?

Like Broncoman points out, Rex’s dad was a great DC, a terrible head coach. Gregg Williams has a lousy record as a head coach. Dick LeBeau’s time at the Bengals was poor — and they weren’t exactly defensive dynamos. Never mind the strategy behind hiring a guy to fix the D — doesn’t it seem like a risky move when great DCs have failed left and right to put good Ds on the coach as HCs?

Not that I don’t want better players. But isn’t that going to be up to the Goodmans?

by Chibronx on Jan 6, 2009 6:22 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Broncos are hiring a Head Coach right now not a DC or OC

The Head Coach will need to be able to assemble and control a good staff. If the Head Coach (either previous DC or OC) is unable to do that then the team will have problems.

Get someone who has been good at building a good staff (as DC or OC) and let them bring in a good coaching staff. Hopefully the Head Coach will not need to be the HC and a coordinator (either DC or OC).

Victor Frankl:

What man actually needs is not a tensionless state but rather the striving and struggling for some goal worthy of him. What he needs is not the discharge of tension at any cost, but the call of a potential meaning waiting to be fulfilled by him.

Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms – to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.

by wyoeng on Jan 6, 2009 5:36 PM MST reply actions 0 recs