Answers in Search of a Question: Fast Track to the Super Bowl?
by Brian Shrout on Mar 1, 2010 10:10 AM MST
in Strictly My Opinion
Email
Print"We learn more by looking for the answer to a question and not finding it than we do from learning the answer itself." -- Lloyd Alexander.
I love skimming through the comments section of the various fanposts at MHR. The membership is filled with an incredibly knowledgeable group of people. A community of fans who are passionate about their team, and who love to talk about the Broncos. A group that freely and civilly shares thoughts, opinions, insights, questions, humor, angst and doubts. All of that is good. In fact, it is the wonderful dialogues here at MHR that prompt much of what I write. So first off, a word of thanks to each and every one of you.
Okay, the touchy-feeling stuff is done, now onto some football. Actually, this article found its origin in a small comment made by bfree2bronc. He raised the issue of how fast coaches get to the Super Bowl. Unfortunately, I did not write down the precise quote at the time I saw it, figuring that I would get back to it later that day, and well . . . we each know how life can suddenly reach out and bite us on the butt and direct our attention elsewhere. So, bfree, and the rest of the writers in that part of the thread, if I misunderstood you, I do apologize.
The gist of the subthread was the belief that McDaniels needs to win now, since coaches either make it to the Super Bowl quickly, or they don't make it at all. I found that to be an intriguing topic and thought I'd take a quick look at it. Quick . . . errr . . . right . . . sure . . . why are these things never simple? LOL Just kidding. I narrowed my examination to those coaches who have won the big game. My rationale was simple and two-fold: (1)It cut the number of coaches in half, and more importantly, (2)The goal is to win the Super Bowl, not just get there. How many Silver Medalists from the Olympics can you name off the top of your head? We want to see our coaches & players win the M--F--ing Super Bowl, not just go and watch the parade.
When I started looking into how fast coaches had made it to the Super Bowl, I did not know what to expect. What I found, I'll share after the fold.
Coaches Who Did Not Win the Super Bowl Until They're 10th Season as HC of a Team, or Longer:
Hank Stram, 1969 won SB IV, in his 10th season as the Head Coach of the Kansas City Chiefs.
Tom Landry, 1971, won SB VI, in his 12th season as HC of Dallas. Landry won again in 1977, in his 18th season as HC of the Cowboys.
Bill Cowher, 2005, won SB XL, in his 14th season as HC of Pittsburgh.
Coaches Who Won in Their 8th Year
Vince Lombardi, 1966, won SB I, in his 8th season as HC of Green Bay. Lombardi won again in 1967 in his 9th season with Green Bay.
John Madden, 1976, won SB XI, in his 8th season as HC of Oakland.
Coaches Who Won in Their 6th Year
Weeb Ewbank, 1968, won SB III, in his 6th season as HC of the New York Jets.
Chuck Noll, 1974, won SB IX, in his 6th season as HC of Pittsburgh. Noll also won the SB in 1975 (7th), 1978 (10th), and 1979 (11th).
Coaches Who Won in Their 5th Year
Mike Holmgren, 1996, won SB XXXI, in his 5th season as HC of Green Bay.
Tony Dungy, 2006, won SB XLI, in his 5th season as HC of Indianapolis.
Coaches Who Won in Their 4th Year
Mike Ditka, 1985, won SB XX, in his 4th season as HC of Chicago.
Bill Parcells, 1986, won SB XXV, in his 4th season as HC of the New York Giants. Parcells also won in 1990 (8th).
Jimmy Johnson, 1992, won SB XXVII, in his 4th season as HC of Dallas. Johnson won again in 1993 (5th).
Tom Coughlin, 2007, won SB XLII, in his 4th season as HC of the New York Giants.
Sean Payton, 2009, won SB XLIV, in his 4th season as HC of New Orleans.
Coaches Who Won in Their 3rd Year
Don Shula, 1972, won SB VII, in his 3rd season as HC of Miami. Shula also won in 1973 (4th).
Bill Walsh, 1981, won SB XVI, in his 3rd season as HC of San Francisco. Walsh also won in 1984 (6th) and 1988 (10th).
Mike Shanahan, 1997, won SB XXXII, in his 3rd season as HC of Denver. Shanahan also won in 1998 (4th).
Dick Vermeil, 1999, won SB XXXIV, in his 3rd season as HC of St. Louis.
Coaches Who Won in Their 2nd Year
Tom Flores, 1980, won SB XV, in his 2nd season as HC of Oakland. Flores won again in 1983 (5th).
Joe Gibbs, 1982, won SB XVII, in his 2nd season as HC of Washington. Gibbs won again in 1987 (7th) and 1991 (11th).
Barry Switzer, 1995, won SB XXX, in his 2nd season as HC of Dallas.
Brian Billick, 2000, won SB XXXV, in his 2nd season as HC of Baltimore.
Bill Belichick, 2001, won SB XXXVI, in his 2nd season as HC of New England. Belichick also won in 2003 (4th) and 2004 (5th).
Mike Tomlin, 2008, won SB XXLIII, in his 2nd season as HC of Pittsburgh.
Coaches Who Won in Their 1st Year
Don McCafferty, 1970, won SB V, in his 1st season as HC of the Baltimore Colts.
George Seifert, 1989, won SB XXIV, in his 1st season as HC of San Francisco. Seifert also won in 1994 (6th).
Jon Gruden, 2002, won SB XXVII, in his 1st season as HC of Tampa Bay.
First off, a couple of observations regarding the coaches who won the SB in their first year with their team. Seifert, it can be claimed simply inherited a team that had won the SB the previous year under Bill Walsh. Gruden, it has been argued, won the SB in his first year with Tampa Bay because he was fortunate enough to face the Oakland Raiders -- the team he had been the HC of the previous year. Whether or not those claims carry any weight is for the discussion of history to decide.
When we look at these SB winning coaches, and how long it took them to reach that pinnacle of NFL success, a couple of very interesting trends emerge. The SB era can be broken into 4 parts, based on the coaches, their tenure with their team before winning the big game, and the average number of coaches for the NFL teams during that period:
| Years |
Average Tenure before winning the Super Bowl |
Average # of Coaches each NFL team had during this period |
| 1966-1969 |
8.3 years |
1.5 coaches |
| 1970-1980 |
7.6 years |
3.8 coaches |
| 1981-1991 |
5.5 years |
3.1 coaches |
| 1992-2009 |
4.2 years |
4.9 coaches |
On the one hand, it can easily been seen that as the SB history progressed, coaches were getting their teams to the SB more quickly than in previous years. In fact, coaches were getting their teams to the SB in almost half the time in '92-'09 than they were in '66-'69. It is interesting to note that this downward tenure trend, and the rise in the number of coaching changes coincided with the AFL-NFL merger in 1970. The second shift came shortly after the addition of 2 new teams (Seattle and Tampa Bay) in 1976. It can also be noted that the third period '81-'91 saw a continued decline in the tenure figure, though the number of coaching changes stablized a bit. The addition of 4 new teams in the mid-90's and the deactivation of the Cleveland franchise for 3 years may have contributed to the rapidly shifting coaching scene. Add in the effects of a growing degree of parity among the teams, and the growing importance of free agency, and we can see how team composition and coaching changes created an atmosphere of "get there quickly or not at all."
On the other hand, it can also be seen (if you look at the individual coaches' history) that the coaches with multiple SB wins tended to be the ones who had lengthy tenures with their teams. This is borne out by the fact that of the 12 coaches who have won multiple SBs, not one won their second SB earlier than their 4th season with that team. Three coaches (Shula, Shanahan, Belichick) won their second in their 4th season. Two (Flores and Johnson) won in their 5th seasons. The rest all won in their 6th or later system. Even Seifert who won in his 1st season had to wait another 5 years before winning the SB for a 2nd time. Among the coaches who have won 3 or more SBs (Noll, Walsh, Gibbs, Belichick), none won their third any sooner than their 5th season (Belichick) with most of them having to build their teams until their 10th (Noll, Walsh) or 11th (Gibbs) seasons. Which could lead to a perspective that if you want your team to win multiple SB's you need to keep your coach around for a while.
So the question quickly becomes:
What do we want to see from our Head Coach -- a young genius who gets us to the Super Bowl quickly, only to never return, or one who takes a bit longer, builds us into perennial contenders, and wins us multiple Super Bowls?
Give your opinion in the poll and the comments section.
***********************************
A Rather Lengthy Footnote
As often happens when looking for patterns among other teams, and thinking about our beloved Broncos, in bouncing ideas around with various people, I found myself considering my own question: What Do I Want to See from McDaniels?
1)I want a coach who builds a franchise that is in the final 8 teams in the playoffs, more years than not -- by a significant degree.
2)I want a coach who, after the season's game film has been fully reviewed, isn't afraid to improve the team by subtraction when warranted.
3)I want a coach who strives to improve himself, and the rest of the coaching staff as much as he strives to improve the players on the team.
4)I want a coach who's going to be around for a minimum of 5 years, and would prefer one who's going to stay well beyond that.
5)I want a coach who brings in quality people, who fully embrace his system/vision, and then trusts those people to implement that vision, from scouting, to free agency, to personnel, to offensive/defensive schemes.
6)I want a coach who demands that all players, coaches, staff -- including himself -- do their utmost to contribute to the success of the team.
IMHO, in McDaniels, we have such a coach. He's a smart, self-critical, self-confident man who demands the best from everyone around him. Name one other coach who had to deal with the kinds of issues that McDaniels had to deal with in 2009. As much as I admire Mike Shanahan, I believe Shanahan allowed himself to get stretched too thin in trying to achieve complete control over the program, and as a result, moved away from what he did best -- offensive game plan. This led to some mistakes when it came to scouting, personnel development, and getting staff and players to buy into Mike's vision. McDaniels came in insisting that the team would be built around a specific vision, and the players responded. Now McDaniels has to teach himself and the rest of the team how to handle the adversity that comes when you lose, and not let that carry over into multiple games.
I agree with the assessment that has been made by many here at MHR that the underlying problems facing the Broncos were far more extensive than simply being a player or two away from the SB, or that it was all the fault of the defense. McDaniels did the unthinkable: he came in and stripped away all of our comforting illusions (remember the claim that we had the 2nd ranked offense - even though we were only 16th in scoring, and far worse in give-aways?). He called a spade a spade, and then offered a solution. A solution that required, and continues to require, a massive realignment of how we see our Broncos, a redefinition of who the Broncos are and who they can be, a solution that demands that we let go of things that we have long held as truisms, and embrace a new truth, a solution that demands that Broncos grow into a team that can dominate once again.
93 comments
|
12 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Nice write up Brian
I wonder hoe much the numbers would change if you throw out Siefert and Switzer. They inherited their Super Bowl Teams.
Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks
I would think the main effect would be to raise the average tenure # slightly
Without actually running the numbers, I’d guess that the 1981-1991 (Seifert) tenure would move closer to 6 years, and the 1992-2009 (Switzer) number would be closer 4 1/2 years.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Mar 1, 2010 11:05 AM MST up reply actions
so many variables go with the winning of a superbowl
I still prefer winning percentage as a more accurate way of measuring a coaches success and even that is clouded by a so much …strength of division, conference, injuries & the team they inherit are just a few. Makes for good conversation though, great work as always.
Another factor that I feel shaped Shanny’s approach; Shanny inherited a team that truly was just a few players from winning everything and a small window in which to do so. (Elway’s age) His success using his quick-fix methods very likely kept him off-balance through the rest of his tenure here. When does a coach admit the window has closed an it’s time to re-evaluate his approach?
by Whidbey Bronco on Mar 1, 2010 3:31 PM MST up reply actions
I totaly agree
I would like to see another dynasty here and the points you brought up make me excited about our direction. I like that players and coaches will be open to change if needed and are motivated by pride. I believe Mr. Bowlen will give J.Mc D the chance to build it .
I agree hawkmaneg
I would much prefer missing the SB for another season or two if it means we’re building a team that is a regular participant in the playoffs, and gets to the big dance on a consistent basis.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Mar 1, 2010 11:18 AM MST up reply actions
Very nice
It’s quite the eye opener to realize how many years these guys were given to win the big game. Especially the likes of Landry and Cowher. It’s too bad that a small, extremely vocal portion of Bronco Nation won’t see this kind of info, mostly because they don’t want too.
I don't think this is confined to Broncos fans
I believe there’s a wider perception at work here. It has been fostered by the media, by free agency, by our society in general. It’s why I chose the quote I currently have as a sig line: We live in an age when instant gratification isn’t fast enough.
We want things to happen right away. I’m inclined to believe this is why we see athletes switching teams as often as they do, right along with coaches.
This also, IMHO, explains why certain teams are perennial play off contenders — they have kept their coaches in place. Indianapolis had Dungy for 7, followed by an Ass’t coach. New England (10 years), Philadelphia (11 years), Baltimore (9 years before a change), San Diego (5 years before a change), Pittsburgh (15 years before a change). This might also explain why Dallas plays well but falters in the post season — their average coaching tenure in the last decade or so has been 3 years.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Mar 1, 2010 11:36 AM MST up reply actions
You're right, PDX
But if they see it, they’re going to ignore it anyway. The first law of unreasoning prejudice is:
Don’t confuse the issue with facts!
I’d have rec’d it twice if they let me. Great article, Brian – I look forward to your work each week.
Don't say rebuild - say reload...
Thanks, Doc.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Mar 1, 2010 11:36 AM MST up reply actions
Overpraise throughout
Thus far McDaniels has proven nothing. Your question as to “Name one other coach who had to deal with the kinds of issues that McDaniels had to deal with in 2009” is weak. Most of the issues the Broncos faced this season were caused wholly or in part by McDaniels himself (everything from Cutler and Marshall to Nolan’s departure – McD cannot be absolved of all the blame in any situation). And he did not have to deal with the single most devastating issue teams usually have to deal with: injuries. One of the healthiest teams in the NFL and the Broncos still managed to regress in nearly every offensive category, drop 8 of their last 10 games and look inept most of the time in doing it.
Am I saying McDaniels cannot turn into a good coach? No. But to give him the benefit of the six points you list based of his first underwhelming season is too much. One more season of what I saw last year and I don’t want to see McDaniels in Orange and Blue ever again.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted and then used against you.
by improv88 on Mar 1, 2010 11:37 AM MST reply actions 2 recs
Improv, we've had this conversation before
You don’t like McDaniels and I do.
I agree that McDaniels has growing to do as a coach. My 6 points in the footnote are what I want to see him grow into. I firmly believe he can get there.
The point of the “issues” comment was aimed at the idea that no other coach who went 8-8 had to deal with the same set of problems: almost a 50% roster turnover, loss of a popular QB, hold-out and misbehavior by a productive WR, etc etc.
Nor have I ever “absolved” McDaniels of blame in what has gone on. Rather, I argue the perspective:
McDaniels did the unthinkable: he came in and stripped away all of our comforting illusions (remember the claim that we had the 2nd ranked offense – even though we were only 16th in scoring, and far worse in give-aways?). He called a spade a spade, and then offered a solution.
I tend to believe the issue that many people have with McDaniels is that his solution is not the one they would have picked.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Mar 1, 2010 11:56 AM MST up reply actions 1 recs
Disagree
I think people can disagree with McDaniels and his style for reasons that have less to do with his choices from his range of options than with his implementation of the choices he made. In my opinion, I think he has botched a number of situations and made many of them more about Josh McDaniels than about the team as a whole. In my opinion, a good coach is nearly invisible as the team gels under team leadership. Instead, I think McDaniels has often thrust himself into the limelight in situations such as involving Cassel, last year’s draft, the offensive line, the punter, his inadequate response to the failures of his offense at the end of the year and Marshall/Scheffler/Hillis. I think he draws attention to himself and distracts by the way he imitates his mentor in the way he dresses for a game. I see some of his actions as simply coaching immaturity.
That said, I think he has done some good things. His defense made a number of good strides last year. The RBs were upgraded. This year should prove to be very interesting and I hope Coach McDaniels grows as his team does in his 2nd year.
by Baltimore Bronco on Mar 1, 2010 2:19 PM MST up reply actions
Fair enough and I absolutely agree with your last statment.
One of the divisive things in 2009 has been the way in which the situations and circumstances have been interpreted by the fans and the media.
I hope Coach McDaniels grows as his team does in his 2nd year.
That statement is spot on.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
Agree
I just think that Josh McDaniels would do well by growing into his role. I think there is room for that. He was awfully young when he got the job and had no real opportunity to learn some things in advance of that large promotion.
This year will be critical for him. Every team in the AFC West is rebuilding. No one will accept another 8-8 year. I look forward to the free agency, draft and training camp decisions. The less drama the better. My guess is that it will go much better this year.
by Baltimore Bronco on Mar 1, 2010 3:20 PM MST up reply actions
That, I believe is everyone's hope
That 2010 goes better than 2009.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
Perhaps it's overpraise....
But consider this:
1. You are giving McDaniels blame for situations that the media blew into fiascos. You are not giving him credit for getting rid of Cutler, because having Cutler on the team could just as easily have resulted in more losses.
2. True, we did not have the injury bug in a horrible way, but we had critical key injuries, namely on the offensive line and at QB, which obviously affected offensive production.
3. Nolan’s departure and Marshall’s behavior cannot be blamed on McDaniels. You can blame him for mishandling the situation, but you can’t know what really went on. I am not saying he handled things well or badly. He did what he thought was best. It is what it is. Benching Marshall might have avoided a locker-room revolt against special treatment for players who don’t work as hard. Maybe McD did everything right, and Nolan just wanted to go back to the East Coast. No one knows.
My point is: If you’re going to blame McD for messing up “what could have been,” you also need to give him credit for avoiding bigger disasters that “could have been.”
I don’t want another 8-8 season, either. But with a total turnaround in scheme, key injuries, and a first-year HC, it’s not that bad. Have glass of perspective and enjoy the big picture that’s unfolding before us.
-Harvey J. Neptune
"Practice doesn't make perfect. PERFECT practice makes perfect." - Vince Lombardi
"I peg you as a glass half empty kinda guy, am I right?"
Based on what most folks thought the Broncos would do this season(not well), what we’re you looking for? A Super Bowl run? 8-8 may not be flashy but as far as new head coaches this year he did pretty well despite the issues you state, and he seems to be willing to admit to not being perfect which means he can learn from his mistakes. I guess we all just have different expectations for what a rookie head coach should do.
Th glass is half full. Of air.
-Harvey J. Neptune
"Practice doesn't make perfect. PERFECT practice makes perfect." - Vince Lombardi
Oh, and I'm recommending your comment,
because of the point-counterpoint it offers.
-Harvey J. Neptune
"Practice doesn't make perfect. PERFECT practice makes perfect." - Vince Lombardi
The man to replace the man
Mike Shanahan was a legend in Denver, and not unlike John Elway,it might take the next head coach to replace the man.As the saying goes you dont want want to be the man to replace the man,but you want to be the man to replace the man to replace the man.In the Elway instance it was Jake Plummer and he took the Broncos to within 60 minutes of their last Super Bowl.Shanahan was even the man to replace the man after Dan Reeves.
by Charlie Kirkpatrick on Mar 1, 2010 11:43 AM MST reply actions
Good point
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Mar 1, 2010 11:56 AM MST up reply actions
Great job, BS.
You put a lot of work into this. For me, these statistics don’t mean much, though. The Super Bowl has been played 44 times. As a body of history on which to base conjecture, that is just too small a sample to accurately project trends. I’d be interested to see Chaos Theory applied to football, because I believe it’s a more likely predictor. I think any given coach can win in any given year. Look at the Titans, for example. How many games did they lose that they could have won? For that matter, how many did they win that they could have lost? How many games hinge upon one ref call, or one injury, or one play that could have gone either way? Stokely, anyone? There really is a Butterfly Effect going on here. One minor injury might mean a player barely misses a tackle, resulting in a huge play, ending in another injury, resulting in a less risky playcall, resulting in a win, resulting in a playoff berth, etc. etc.
If I had the time to research it, I’d write the article myself. Please don’t get me wrong, I think this is great stuff, and I know how long it must have taken you. It is insightful information, and I treat it as such. In the end, none of us can predict the future. Every bit of information takes us closer to realization, though.
Thanks, and Rec’d
-Harvey J. Neptune
"Practice doesn't make perfect. PERFECT practice makes perfect." - Vince Lombardi
Great post B, as always!
For the most part, I agree with your thoughts relating to what you expect in a coach. The biggest question in my mind, as it relates to us, though, is about rookie HC’s. It’s the all-too-broad question of whether a successful coordinator can become a successful HC, whether he can not only coach, but also execute the big-picture vision, whether he can actually administrate on the larger level, manage and lead.
For what it’s worth, I look at McDaniels’ education and the methodical way in which he’s approached some of the non-teaching aspect so far and conclude he’s likely got the pencil-pushing part, the administrative end.
Then there’s the overall implementation of a vision, to first have the vision, then build a core group of trusted advisors and football minds, successfully communicate your vision to them, lead them, inspire them, and get the best advice from them (while leaving the rest).
Through this group, he then either makes good decsisions on players and personnel or not so good ones. As far as that goes, the jury’s still out on his personnel decisions (hero in free agency, too early to grade his draft). Then they go out and prepare for the games (high marks there), then play the games (8/8 fo far).
If his vision is missing elements or off the mark, he fails as a HC. Period. If he brings in the wrong core guys (OC, DC, X, brother Ben, etc..) he will fail. Personnel errors have a margin of error. And winning games comes in time.
Anyway, like I said, the question is whether he can not only coach, but also manage and execute the big vision. I’m just not sure how we can really quantify or show evidence of whether he’s got it a this point.
As for the SB breakdown, very interesting stuff. A couple of basic things stuck out at me. One, is how very clear the trend is for how long a coach has to win a SB. Much higher turnover and less patience these days. Second, is just the overall names on the list. I guess it never really struck me like that of how so very important and rare SB winning coaches are.
Anyway again, thanks for sharing all the great information. To me, knowing that only 27 coaches have ever won the big game throught the history of the league, and considering all the variables that go into getting their team there (even if they didn’t really build it), it just seems like a pretty small sample size to draw any conclusions.
Good luck with the Redskins Mr. Mike! I'll be watching and cheering for a non-Bronco team for the first time in my life. Well, except when they play the Broncos!
Oh, I should add
that although there may be no way to prove whether or not he’s got “it” at this point, we can still opinion. And I’m certainly a believer. I think he’s got the vision and execution is just a matter of time. 2011 =)
Good luck with the Redskins Mr. Mike! I'll be watching and cheering for a non-Bronco team for the first time in my life. Well, except when they play the Broncos!
Mother Effing "it." That's ALL we need!
-Harvey J. Neptune
"Practice doesn't make perfect. PERFECT practice makes perfect." - Vince Lombardi
This is just coaches who WIN the superbowl right?
what about the 44(or fewer) coaches that took their team to the superbowl and lost? how long were those guys tenured?
All of those coaches were
Marty Schottenheimer. LOL
-Harvey J. Neptune
"Practice doesn't make perfect. PERFECT practice makes perfect." - Vince Lombardi
There were 19 more coaches
who got their teams to the SB & lost.
Makes you think. 44 Super Bowls, 88 Coaching Slots. 46 coaches actually made it that far.
As I mentioned above in a response to HarvJNep2n, I have a couple of follow up articles in the work.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Mar 1, 2010 12:07 PM MST up reply actions
I wonder what the washout rate is
Wonder how many HC’s never made it to the game. What ya think, like 15:1 or something?
Good luck with the Redskins Mr. Mike! I'll be watching and cheering for a non-Bronco team for the first time in my life. Well, except when they play the Broncos!
Now THAT'S an interesting w\question....
-Harvey J. Neptune
"Practice doesn't make perfect. PERFECT practice makes perfect." - Vince Lombardi
Correction: There were 20 who made to the dance, but lost.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
Does Norv fit in here?
-Harvey J. Neptune
"Practice doesn't make perfect. PERFECT practice makes perfect." - Vince Lombardi
I’m going to disagree to a point.
I think the goal has to be not JUST to win a S.B., but also to put an entertaining product on the field. I am fortunate to live in Barcelona where we have arguably the best futbol team in the world. For Barca, it is not enough to just win games. They must win "with style." It seems that in our passion for all things Broncos, we sometimes forget that this, the NFL, is entertainment. Sure, it’s a business for a lot of people, but for the vast majority of people on the site, this is just for fun. That is why I’d take St. Louis’ 1 SB win (with the greatest show on turf) or the 2000 Baltimore win (for lovers of defense) to the 3 Patriot wins. Perhaps I’m in the minority, and perhaps I don’t know enough football to be a "true" fan, whatever that means, but I don’t think I’d be satisfied with a non-descript winning team. So, I’d add to the list, that I want a coach that builds an exciting team of people I want to watch and cheer. I think McDaniels is well on his way.
That's an interesting take....
Do you go with the Vanilla scheme with a technician like Brady who gets it done by checking down and picking apart a defense? Or do you go balls out and try to win with an exciting guy like Favre or Cutler? The answer for me is obvious. Give me the W any day.
I teach music. I have a similar debate with my bosses on a regular basis. Every week, when our high school football team plays, our marching band performs a half-time show to entertain the crowd. Is it better to provide an entertaining show with little educational value, or a show with music that makes you think, with great educational value to the performers, even though it might be less exciting? In education, I think that the decision is a little more cut and dried. If the purpose is music education, then the music should be educational.
Same with football. Competition is not about entertainment. It’s about determining the best strategies, and who can execute those strategies the best. It is the search for athletic excellence, not going for the cheap gimmick (Jay Cutler’s deep pass) that loses games.
Wow, this one is going to start an argument! Keep it civil folks, it’s just a difference of opinion. Let’s discuss it like adults.
-Harvey J. Neptune
"Practice doesn't make perfect. PERFECT practice makes perfect." - Vince Lombardi
In response to my own argument,
I happen to think it’s possible to do both; provide entertainment and pursue excellence simultaneously.
-Harvey J. Neptune
"Practice doesn't make perfect. PERFECT practice makes perfect." - Vince Lombardi
I may just steal this quote and sneak it into the article
I want a coach that builds an exciting team of people I want to watch and cheer
The biggest obstacle in treating football as entertainment is the reality that when teams don’t win, players and coaches find themselves looking for work. The other issue is what one person finds exciting, someone else doesn’t.
I want a coach that builds a team that is both exciting and wins.
But as ivanthenotsbad mentions below, all of these variables is what makes NFL football so fun to watch.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Mar 1, 2010 12:54 PM MST up reply actions
Feel free...
just make sure to cite me. lol.
I think the goal has to be not JUST to win a S.B., but also to put an entertaining product on the field.
Correct me if I’m wrong but………. All we’re trying to do is win a MF game.
I could go into more detail, but I don’t feel that I have to. That’s it.
If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.
PS3 ID: broncomaniac6
Exactly. And if McDaniels really believes that, I would respectfully disagree; he should be trying to do more. Of course, you have to be at least moderately successful to get to keep playing, but there are a lot of ways to win. Nobody wants a QB who throws a ton of picks and loses consistently (see Cutler, Jay), but I think most NFL fans want to see more than just a W. I suspect that this question is deeply subjective, but I’d take Kurt Warner over Tom Brady and Sean Payton over Tom Landry any day. Why? Because they gave us something memorable. Playing the odds will always win you the most games in the long run, but who really wants to see that? And who’s going to remember it? Be honest, how much do you like the guy who picks only #1 or #2 seeds for his March Madness pool? It’s boring. What would you rather say in 20 years…that we won 3 Super Bowls, or that we won one, but we had one of the greatest teams of all time?
I guess this is the point at which we will have to agree to disagree
we had one of the greatest teams of all time
And this may be a bias based on my training as a teacher of emotionally disturbed students. With my students it is not enough for them to have one glorious day, I want to see them have success more days than not.
I tend to carry that over into my football fandom. I want my team to have a winning record more often than not. I want them in the playoffs more often than not. I want them in (and winning) the Super Bowl on a regular basis. Sometimes we’re going to win because the offense rose up and scored a bunch of points. Sometimes we’re going to win because the defense totally shut down the other team. Sometimes we’re going to win on a dramatic play by the special teams.
I think that’s the kind of team McDaniels is building — one that can beat you in a variety of ways. The excitement comes from never knowing how they’re going to hit the opponents.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
oops, I meant to include
that for me, the appellation “the greatest” is something that can only come through consistent performance over a long period of time.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
What would you rather say in 20 years…that we won 3 Super Bowls, or that we won one, but we had one of the greatest teams of all time?
Honestly, I’d rather say that we won 3 Super Bowls. If I could say that we win 20 Super Bowls out of the next 20 years, then I would be all for that, regardless of whether or not we are “exciting”.
I think that you and I define “exciting” differently. What’s more exciting than winning a bunch of games and going to the playoffs and winning a championship? Who cares if you have an exciting team? The 2007 Patriots were pretty exciting (if you are a pats fans or an offense fan), but they didn’t win a championship. So, if you ask the patriots fan if they would rather have been a boring team that won a super bowl or an exciting team that won every game except the super bowl, I think you’d be hard pressed to find one that would say “no thanks” to a super bowl victory.
If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.
PS3 ID: broncomaniac6
So, honestly, I can say that I want nothing more on sunday than a W.
I find that my week days are more enjoyable after Broncos victories. Even when we had Jay Cutler (an “exciting” quarterback), when we lost, I certainly never found myself saying “Well, we lost, but at least it was exciting.”
And about the march madness thing, I don’t really care who anybody else picks. I just pick the teams I think are going to win and win the MF money (copyright Josh McDaniels). And I must say, as a person who has won the money 2 out of the past 3 years in my friend’s march madness pool (245 dollars combined), going with UK and Kansas is a pretty solid way of not killing your bracket this year, but the way you win the money is by picking the games between the 3 through 13 seeds. The early games can push you over the top or kill you.
If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.
PS3 ID: broncomaniac6
Perhaps that explains our difference of opinion…
Those are both valid points but you’re right; we’re going to have to agree to disagree. I’m a research scientist, so I am directly rewarded for rolling the dice and going for it all. The 2007 Pats are actually an excellent example. Of course I don’t want to see our Broncos win all the way through only to lose in the Super Bowl, but I DO want McDaniels to GO FOR IT! I want him to go for something special (a 19-0 season!) and keep the foot on the gas even if it lessens his chances of winning the SB.
And you’re right. UK and Kansas probably will push their way through, but the one year that Sienna goes all the way, you’ll know who predicted it. LOL.
It is my humble belief
That we will see McDaniels “go for it” more this next season.
Keep in mind, he was instituting a new offensive scheme that has it’s own terminology. Each player had to go through the process of learning what those terms are, and what each one required each player to do on any given play. It’s also been said that the McDaniels’ “playbook” is several volumes and takes up an entire bookshelf.
McDaniels himself, in a one-on-one interview available here refers to last season as one in which the coaches had to teach Orton & the offense to crawl, and then walk, and that this year they should be able to hit the ground running.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
That's fair enough.
I’m a bioengineering student, so rolling the dice isn’t exactly my nature, either. Clearly, we are on two different wavelengths. If we can win a bunch of championships and be exciting, that’s great. If we had to choose one or the other, I’d have a hard time taking excitement over championships.
On the basketball front, I’ll just laugh my way to the bank, just like I did when I picked Kansas to win the championship two years ago and Florida three years ago. It’s never the team that played well at the beginning and lose late in the season (UK/Kansas). It’s the team that played well in the two weeks prior to the tournament (Syracuse). Bank it.
If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.
PS3 ID: broncomaniac6
No one can break the Boeheim curse...
besides ’Melo
Because Montana has no professional sports, I gotta support the land of my birth.
Socrates was once executed for 'trolling'.
^Needs explaining: don't call someone asking uncomfortable, slightly antagonistic questions trolls. In all odds they probably just want to learn. It's real easy to differentiate a 'Socratic' post from a trolling one (unless you're a resident of WCG).
^Needs further explaining: I have yet to post anything on WCG, don't worry, I'm not trying to rationalize anything I've done. I've just lurked over there and man, they are the model of post-peloponnesian war Athens.
Meh. Curses are overrated.
Besides, how in the heck can UK lose to Tennessee? On paper, UK is stacked (Wall, Cousins, Patterson, etc.), but they aren’t playing well as a team, right now. Whenever they go against a team that can slow down Wall, UK is in trouble.
Meanwhile, Syracuse has been beating top 25 teams all season, except for a loss against hot and cold Louisville and Pitt, who was strong early. It’s going to be tough to pick against the orange, for me.
If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.
PS3 ID: broncomaniac6
Good article
Football has more variables than most sports and it’s difficult to control all of them or predict what will happen or even what should be done. The word “chemistry” is often thrown around but it’s probably more than that.
For instance:
The Bronco’s talent pool this last year was pretty shallow IMO. Injuries, even minor ones, (to Orton’s ankle or Harris’ toe) had worse consequences because of the lack of talent and depth. The same could be said for the injuries to Alfonso Smith, J’Vonne Parker.
Tied to the fact that the new systems on both offense and defense take time (up to 3 yrs) to master any set-back is magnified.
To blame Cutler and Marshall’s (possible Sheffler’s) “drama queen” personalities on McDaniel is lunicy. The best thing to do with a “drama queen” is to public disparage them. That’s the only way they get any message. For they want what they want at the cost to everyone else, but they don’t want to look bad. McD did IMO the right thing in both cases. It was an unbelievably mature thing to do for his age (and some arrogant people call him "arrogantly immature). Do you want another TO or 85 to plague your team?
That the Broncos went 8-8 when everyone (including myself) expected this first year to be a painful growing experience (6-10 at best 2-14 at worst) is IMO remarkable.
To be a consistent playoff team (superbowls come more from luck, good breaks, and kind officiating than anything else to playoff teams) the Broncos need to grow in the systems and collect a better talent pool. The first is up to McD and he gives me confidence he can do that. The second is partially a crap shoot ameliorated by dogged research and “gut feelings”.
People talk about “reaches” in the draft. Nobody is a reach is you have them higher than others. Walter and CBS Scout are not infallible – I don’t think they are particularly good.
For instance, I don’t have any QB this year rated higher than the 4th round. So until you get to the 5th round they’re all a “reach” IMO. However, I rate Berry high and McClain – higher than some. They’d never be a reach for me.
But that’s NFL football and why I love the game.
by ivanthenotsobad on Mar 1, 2010 12:35 PM MST reply actions 5 recs
This is an important point to remember
Football has more variables than most sports and it’s difficult to control all of them or predict what will happen or even what should be done.
All of those extraneous factors have an effect on whether or not a coach is able to reach and/or with the SB>
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Mar 1, 2010 12:48 PM MST up reply actions
this
-Harvey J. Neptune
"Practice doesn't make perfect. PERFECT practice makes perfect." - Vince Lombardi
Hoorah!!!
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."-- Oscar Wilde
by PredominantlyOrange on Mar 1, 2010 2:57 PM MST up reply actions
It's interesting that some still feel that McDaniels hasn't 'done anything' yet.
Of course he has. He’s established his coaches, showed the defensive, ST and offensive systems that will be used, chosen coaches, established systems, handled personnel issues (professionally, generally behind closed doors and with an even temper for the public), showed that he’s a hands on coach, developed the QBs, run a training camp and coached for one year.
That’s nothing? Only if your prejudice is in full flame. Like him or not, he took over a team with deep problems and has begun to implement solutions. If what is meant is "Well, he didn’t get in the playoffs – sure. That’s true. And, there was no reason to think at the beginning of the season that they would We all knew that there were weaknesses in the team that would take more than 1 year to solve.
Don't say rebuild - say reload...
by Doc Bear on Mar 1, 2010 3:20 PM MST reply actions 1 recs
Medium Ground
I agree that McDaniels did some good things and some life needed to be breathed into the franchise. It is refreshing that Shanahan has essentially agreed that he needed the football version of an academic sabbatical.
Where I draw issue is when people go the other way and paint everything McDaniels did in the boy genius light. He was clumsy in a lot of the things he did and his draft had some reaches. Publicly outing various players in the late season, damning the offensive line and the debacles with Oakland and KS with lousy gameplans all were preventable. I attended the Baltimore game and Denver did not come to that game ready to play.
A little candor from both sides would be really helpful in healing Bronco Nation. I don’t think any of us want to go through another season of McDaniels Lovers/McDaniels Haters again. I hope we hear very little of Josh McDaniels in the coming year and instead get to focus on the very real positional battles we should see in this offseason.
by Baltimore Bronco on Mar 1, 2010 3:30 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
Of course, not.
We are an innovative bunch. This season, it will be Marshall keepers vs. Marshall traders! LOL
-Harvey J. Neptune
"Practice doesn't make perfect. PERFECT practice makes perfect." - Vince Lombardi
Totally agree with this:
I don’t think any of us want to go through another season of McDaniels Lovers/McDaniels Haters again
Like you said, McDaniels did some things well, while in others he made rookie mistakes.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
Frack me.
This was supposed to be a reply to Baltimore Bronco. Grrr.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
Like your posts Emmett
I find myself enjoying your posts Emmett and agreeing with you a lot.
There are two old sayings that seem to be true:
“Those that can do; those that can’t criticize.”
“For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism.”
IMO people who criticize generally lack insight, imagination and the ability to envision alternate points of view and their potential value. Hence it is easier to find fault.
The term “rookie mistakes” leaves me cold. I’d have to be totally arrogant to think I, who have never coached an NFL team, could identify rookie mistakes. (That would be a “rookie mistake” – the old term was “sophmorism” – “thinking you know more than you do.”)
I don’t try to portray McD as “some boy genius” but I like to be fair. I think the term “genius” is overworked and probably not useful.
IMO a rookie mistake might have been something like “vaccilation; not knowing what to do; having no vision or plan; in-ability to communicate his point of view, etc” none of which I have seen, so far, in McD. I think that the criticism comes because he did not make many “rookie mistakes” and people resent him for being further along than they (and I) expected.
He’s too sure of himself for their tastes. It is interesting that the veterans on the team don’t seem to think he’s “arrogant or immature” or has made “rookie mistakes”. Only the “queens” and the “trolls” and “idiots”. I, personally, think Dawkins and Bailey know a good thing when they see it.
Even his “reaches” (I wouldn’t have drafted Moreno where he was drafted, and I would have tried to get Unger), were “reaches” only to those who had the players targeted rated lower than McD/Xan did. “One man’s trash is another man’s treasure,” as they say. Phonz is “slow” according to one post who already designated him a bust. Phonz ran 4.51 at the combine (where most ran slower than their predictions), but he ran 4.21 at his Pro Day, which is pretty quick in my mind. I expect he’ll eventually be regarded as a pretty good corner because he’s aggressive and not complacent or self-satisfied.
So far, I’m not at all apprehensive about the future. They should be in the playoffs in two years or less, and deep into them shortly thereafter. Just need to get more comfortable in the system and add talent and depth.
by ivanthenotsobad on Mar 1, 2010 4:21 PM MST reply actions 5 recs
Nicely said
When someone take what I say and says it better, I appreciate it (When they take it and change the wording to ‘boy genius’, I go on to the next comment). Interesting analysis on the draft – Smith also had a 4.36 40 at Combine he doesn’t have a great technique in the 40, but he’s obviously got the speed, especially when you add the pro day time. This draft will tell us a lot – in a couple of years ;)
Don't say rebuild - say reload...
Hoorah squared!!!
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."-- Oscar Wilde
by PredominantlyOrange on Mar 1, 2010 5:31 PM MST up reply actions
Allow me to chime in as the opposite criticism... if not equal ...in length
For you to think a non- expert can’t recognize a rookie mistake is utterly foolish. Unless perhaps one can become an expert only by watching and not doing. I’m perfectly able to recognize the mistakes made by my betters, my equals and those unlucky few who are less than me. This point seems idiotically obvious to me.
How do you know BTW what the vets on the team think? And what exactly constitutes a vet? Not Scheffler I assume?
I for one hope that his mistakes were rookie ones. Otherwise he won’t learn from them.
And after a season of real data, my eyecromitor sez the 4.51 was closer by far than the 4.21.
Queens, Trolls & Idiots? Really? Seriously?
Oh yeah, one more thing (for length)
“IMO people who criticize generally lack insight, imagination and the ability to envision alternate points of view and their potential value.”
Aren’t you doing an awful lot of criticizing yourself here?
by Whidbey Bronco on Mar 1, 2010 6:13 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
I've used the term "rookie mistakes" with McDaniels
as a simplified way of referring to his own self-criticism. He has talked about things he would like to have done differently, and I suspect (I cannot know for certain) that they are things that he sees as having been incorrectly handled because it was his first year as an HC. He has stated that there are things that he, and the coaches, need to do better next year.
This kind of self-reflection and willingness to say “We could have done better” is a big part of why I believe he will learn from his “mistakes” and get better.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Mar 1, 2010 10:09 PM MST up reply actions
absolutely.
add his willingness to be human to the Xanders interview above! I like these two.
If these youngsters know what we think they know and the team buys in like we hope they will…
The sky’s the limit.
by Whidbey Bronco on Mar 2, 2010 2:31 AM MST up reply actions
VCery Well Said Ivan!!!
And now it’s Green too!
-Stick to the fight when you are hardest hit - it's when things seem worst that you must not quit!
by BroncoSense72 on Mar 2, 2010 8:48 AM MST up reply actions
KidMac
Nice post…and I will be one that says the new coach we have will be forever picked on and then praised..as they all do. KidMac will build this team and as good or better than Mike S. did…we are on the right track and need to be dedicated paitient fans.
Emmett, again you impress me
The word “genius” is a connotative word. It gives little information instead placing a value judgment. It’s used to stop (or start) arguments.
It’s not a useful term. I apparently, according to tests, have an IQ of around 160. It hasn’t done a thing for me. I’m not especially articulate, or successful, or clever, or (most importantly) rich. I, like most everyone, have to work hard to do anything well or correctly.
It doesn’t help me win a MF game!!!
Emmett again
I agree about the draft. I have to admit that I liked Arakpo and Razi early. Think McD probably out did me there. I’m not unhappy with either Moreno or Ayers. Could fit better into his plan.
However, I think I was the first one (early last February) who, in another site, mentioned that I would seriously look at Chris Baker, Tom Brandstater and Everette Pedescleaux.
Win some lose some!
List
1)I want a coach who builds a franchise that is in the final 8 teams in the playoffs, more years than not — by a significant degree.
2)I want a coach who, after the season’s game film has been fully reviewed, isn’t afraid to improve the team by subtraction when warranted.
3)I want a coach who strives to improve himself, and the rest of the coaching staff as much as he strives to improve the players on the team.
4)I want a coach who’s going to be around for a minimum of 5 years, and would prefer one who’s going to stay well beyond that.
5)I want a coach who brings in quality people, who fully embrace his system/vision, and then trusts those people to implement that vision, from scouting, to free agency, to personnel, to offensive/defensive schemes.
6)I want a coach who demands that all players, coaches, staff — including himself — do their utmost to contribute to the success of the team.
1) That goes without saying, I don’t think anybody wants a coach who lands them outside the playoffs more often than not.
2) Improving by subtraction is a great theory, here is where it falls down: player A is a starter and clearly a candidate for addition by subtraction, however it is only addition if some player B can replace that player and be better. If you already had that player on the roster then it is poor coaching that he is not starting and if you have to go look for him then it is not really addition by subtraction but rather addition by addition.
3) This one I like, a coach should improve and change.
4) Well if the coach is getting us in the top 8 more often than not, it is a pretty safe bet he is going to be around for more than 5 years.
5) So you want another Shanahan then? a coach who wields full control over player and personnel decisions.
6) Aside from a few sadsack coaches who have the owners hand far up the ass, I don’t think you will find any coach who would not fit this description. What you will find is diverging oppinions on how that is attained. Is it attained by giving the players freedom? by keeping them on a tight leash? by working them very hard? by being lenient? There are approximately 32 different approaches to this issue in the NFL right now, and since no coach is winning the Lombardi every year I think we can safely say that there is no one way that is perfect.
Thanks for jumping in, you have some good points.
Regarding #5 — No, I do not want to see another Shanahan. Nor was I trying to imply that with that “I want” statement. The key part, in my mind is the 2nd clause:
5)I want a coach who brings in quality people, who fully embrace his system/vision, and then trusts those people to implement that vision, from scouting, to free agency, to personnel, to offensive/defensive schemes.
Obviously, the HC, the rest of the coaching staff, the front office personnel and the players all need to be on the same page. IMHO, the HC has to at least have input on who is brought in, since it the HC who sets the vision for the team. But once he’s got his management team in place (assistant coaches, scouts, personnel people, etc) he needs to trust them to do their jobs which is to implement his vision.
One of the reasons I felt like it was time for Shanahan to move on was my perception that he had moved away from trusting the people he brought in to do what needed to be done.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Mar 1, 2010 10:41 PM MST up reply actions
Let's make it clear
There are no real long term plans in the NFL anymore, if you luck out and get a solid collection of players to make multiple runs then that is great, but bottom line, this is a win now league, you worry about five years from now when you get there. You always try to build for the long term, but you take a SB run whenver you can and in this league you can do that much quicker do to the roster turnover and expanded league, teams back in the 60’s, 70’ and 80’s couldn’t change their rosters over that quickly and replace them with quality players, there wasn’t free agency and teams could hide players on IR and build depth to have long term success like the Cowboys, Dolphines, Steeleres, Broncos, and some other teams. Now you can replace 20 percent of your roster and that is the norm, you can find players in a whole host of areas, draft, FA, and practice squads, so you should be able to build a team rather quickly if you know what you are doing, likewise it is harder to keep those players and coaches together since everyone starts to poach from the successfull teams, so expecting long-term SB runs may be somewhat outdated at this time, I think you build, get there, try to stay, and then know when to rebuild. I look at a team like Philly who has been building for 10 years and has nothing to show except one trip and a loss, I am sure they would trade some 12 win seasons for a title.
"Me fail english, that unpossible" - Ralph Wiggum
"Duffman is thrusting in the direction of the problem" - Duffman
"Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun" - Ash from Army of Darkness
"H.I., you're young and you got your health, what you want with a job?" - Evelle from Raising Arizona
"It happens sometimes. People just explode. Natural causes." - Agent Rogersz from Repoman
I have to respectfully disagree with this
There are no real long term plans in the NFL anymore, if you luck out and get a solid collection of players to make multiple runs then that is great
I think for a large number of the NFL teams you may very well be right. But I have a hard time chalking up the following to sheer luck:
Of the past ten Super Bowls, the AFC has won 7. 6 of those 7 wins have been by just 3 teams. Those teams stand thus over the last decade:
Indianapolis:
1 losing season
9 10+ win seasons
9 Playoff appearances
2 Super Bowl Appearances
1 Super Bowl Win
New England:
1 losing season
8 10+ win seasons
7 Playoff Appearances
4 Super Bowl Appearances
3 Super Bowl Wins
Pittsburgh:
1 losing season
6 10+ win seasons
6 Playoff Appearances
2 Super Bowl Appearances
2 Super Bowl Wins.
The NFC, on the other hand, has gone 3-7 and had 9 different teams appear in the Super Bowl (the Giants were the only team to play more than once).
While I think you many be right that many teams do not plan far into the future, I tend to believe that the NFC has been the poster child for this kind of thinking, and look where it’s gotten them. Look at what Indianapolis, New England and Pittsburgh have achieved. I really cannot believe that such success is simply the luck of the draw as it were.
It takes a vision, carefully implemented with players and coaches that embrace it strongly enough to withstand the loss of some coaches and players. IMHO, that is the attitude that McDaniels is trying to foster in Denver — one that will bring us closer to the Colts, Patriots, or Steelers than to the Eagles.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Mar 1, 2010 10:33 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
Whidbey Bronco
My point was that a term like “rookie mistake” is connotative and is intended to criticize and judge avoiding analysis. If you have a “mistake” in mind, say so and then justify your conclusion that it is a mistake. To term it a “rookie mistake” begs the question (a logical falacy).
If you think his handling of Cutler was a “mistake”, I disagree and don’t think you can justify the charge. Or if you think that his benching of Marshall and Sheffler was a “mistake”, again I don’t agree. I deal with conflict in my profession and deal with people like Cutler, Marshall and Sheffler all of the time. It is what I’m paid to do. I think that the way McD handled the situation is not just according to the book, but surprisingly so, given his age and experience. You might disagree, but if you do, justify it. Don’t attack my qurestioning of the those who IMO criticize without justification or even the thought that they might have to justify it.
You might try to justify your disagreement with the way McD handled those situations, but to aver that they were “rookie mistakes” avoids the issue.
If you’re upset that I ask critics to be accountable, to say that what I am doing is just another form of criticism is what I regard as a “cheap shot”. Critics need to be held to account. They have no free rein to disparage people without accountability. That’s simply muckracking (a connotative term, I admit)! And I try to avoid that and discourage it. It is always destructive and avoids good discussion.
Whidbey Bronco
The vets I mentioned were Dawkins and Bailey.
I didn’t think further definition was required.
Broncoman - several good points
You have a good way of describing the new era in the NFL.
It’s the parity that they have been dreaming of.
However, I sometimes have the feeling that it may be coming to an end.
The current stalemate in negotiations, to the extent that I am able to understand them, might not just result in a lock-out (which would ruin my day).
If the result is that the pendulum swings to ultimate control to the players (and I’m not normally an ownership supporter) I can only envision scenarios that will destroy the competitive parity and eventually my interest in the game (I no longer watch much baseball or basketball though I played both semi-professionally).
I hope an agreement gets worked out that retains the salary cap but at a level that keeps ownership interested and excited in the game. IMO the players will never be underpaid. Those days are long gone.
by ivanthenotsobad on Mar 1, 2010 8:26 PM MST reply actions 1 recs
Another great post Brian and thanks.
I agree with every one of your wants . . . They are mine as well.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Getting Social With MHR
Web Stuff
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Cliff Avril didn’t mean that thing he said about other teams contacting him
- From Cam to RGIII, and the weird psychology of draft analysis
- UCLA comes down with a case of Tebowmania
- Ellen tries to get Kate Upton to confirm Mark Sanchez is her boyfriend
- Sore loser Bully Ray spits beer in the face of Brandon Jacobs
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
