I’m inclined to be optimistic, until I start seeing cracks in the walls of Dove Valley. Right now, things appear to be headed in a positive direction. How that will all shake out in 2010 has yet to be written.

I really try to give credit where it’s due.

I enjoyed your post & it sparked a lot of thoughts. I’m inclined to believe that McDaniels is carefully and deliberately building a team capable of winning now, but also one that will endure and be competitive year in and year out.

We were discussing a story that he, TJ Johnson and I will be co-authoring. In looking at the topic we’re going to discuss, he said:

"I see this article as a search for the truth, not as a debate for or against the issue. . . "

It struck me that Steve very eloquently stated the perspective I have about everything I read and write at MHR. We are all here to learn from one another, not to win arguments or debates. Ultimately, how the team does will determine what the reality is.

There are reasons to question and critique McDaniels’ moves.

Having said that, I suggest being cautious when looking at a single year, or comparing two single years to discern the effectiveness of a player, coach, team or system. As I once had pointed out to me by an MHR staffer there are so many factors that affect the success/failure of a season from:

• injuries (ala Denver running through 7 RBs in 08 – pun intended) to
• sheer dumb luck (ala the play in the NE/Oak game that led to the now infamous Tuck Rule) to
• the type of team the coach inherits (ala Caldwell taking on the SB ready Colts organization vs [Insert your favorite Raiders Coach here] inheriting a largely dysfunctional organization]

That is why I expanded my look to a 5 year span, and even that may have been too small a sample. Emmett Smith once told when I was working on an article comparing players to be cautious since any given year may simply have been an anomaly. Consider 3 of the years I presented above:

In 08 there were 6 rookie coaches (I’m not counting ones who had been HCs previously) who posted 4 winning records.

Now consider the years on either side of 08:

In 09 there were 7 rookie coaches who posted only 2 winning record. One of those can be explained by the coach having inherited a team that has been in the playoffs 9 straight years.

In 07 there were 6 rookie coaches who only posted a single winning record.

Just something to think about.

Had Orton not hurt his ankle in the Redskins game and played the second half, would we have lost the game? I’m not trying to give you the shoulda, coulda, woulda’s. But that changes us from an 8-8 to a 9-7, and McD’s ranking goes up. If Stokely misses the catch in Cinncinati, we’re 7-9. It doesn’t change the positive moves that were made and the excellent moves the team is making this year in FA. McD didn’t inherit the Det Lions, but he isn’t George Siefart taking over the 49ers either. Every new coach has a unique situation, and in my Humble opinion, he did a great job with what he had to work with.

I was looking at teams that posted winning records with rookie head coaches or those who went to the playoffs and this is what I found:

Of those that posted winning records how many posted winning record the previous year:

2005: 1 improved from sub .500 to winning

2006: KC took a step backwards, while NO and NYJ both went from sub .500 to winning

2007: Dallas and SD both stayed the same, while Pittsburg improved from .500 to winning

2008: All three teams went from sub .500 to winning teams

2009: Indy stayed a winning teams while Jets became one

So only eight coaches out of 38 lifted their team out of the bottom to a winning record, or 21% or 1 in 5. The average shift for a rookie coach was +/- 2 games, but that was either staying above or below .500, rarely do coaches take a sub .500 team and make them a winning team. It should also be note that of those 38, 20 were either fired or did worse their second season, so to have a coach who didn’t regress or get fired, and who will probably do better next season is really, really rare.

Repeatedly he was saying he wanted to “win now” because that’s what any coach has got to say to keep their job. But many of the moves McDaniels made last year spoke slightly differently. He is modeling the Broncos – though in his own individual way – after the Patriots, Colts, Steelers type organization. They aquire aging and inexpensive FA’s for depth, while use the draft to load their starting lineup with guys they have hand-picked themselves.

McDaniels had half of a year to prepare for last season, and with all the roster dump that needed to happen – whether you agree or not – he simply couldn’t rebuild his starting lineup in just one draft. It’s going to take another one, possibly two, to get the kind of starting caliber players he wants to field. In this transitional period he is relying heavily on his aging – but still serviceable – inexpensive FA’s. That much is obvious from his signings both this year and last.

He is not simply coming in to Denver and trying to fix Shanahan’s team to get it to a superbowl. He is resetting the entire system, philosphy, and organization to make it a consisten playoff contender, that doesn’t have to rely on “who hits FA this year?” because a lot of team do. The Patriots, Steelers, and Colts, and even the Eagles – all consistant playoff contenders – build from the inside and don’t rely on the FA market to win. They use what they can but the are self-reliant for the most part. That can’t be said about many other organizations out there, and DEFINITELY not about Shanahan’s team the last several years.

Go ahead and say he hasn’t improved on what Shanahan did the year before, but that opinion is narrow-minded and superficial. You’re focused only externally because you are completely concerned with instant gratification. If you took the time to look deeper and had a respect and appreciation for delayed gratification, than you would see the massive changes taking place and the possibility for long-term success.

That’s the problem with America these days, everyone wants everything right now. The best things are worth waiting for. McDaniels is working against the American-grain right now, that’s why he gets so much resistance, even though he is doing something that will establish a consistant winner.

Yeah maybe he’s not a good head coach, maybe he will get fired in a year or two if he does poorly; but make no mistake, the changes he is making in philosphy and with this organization will be the main reason the next coach would be a winner. He’s establishing winning roots and a team philosophy that are the primary reasons most “good teams” never make it to playoffs.

We need to see a better year in 2010.

The only pass that I’m inclined to give McDaniels is the enormity of the roster change (between 40 & 50%) and the task that faced him in getting those guys to gel into new schemes on both sides of the ball.

I think it was to be expected that there would be a period of transformation. So many players had to be broken of old habits and thinking in order to learn and master new ones. As a teacher, I see this process all the time when I receive a new student; which is probably why I’m willing to give McDaniels some time to prove that he’s as good as he was touted to be.

And I believe we will be better this year than last.

One thing that wasn’t mentioned in the other thread or this one, was the fact that McD and Xanders had a much shortened prep time for last year’s draft/FA periods. All things considered, I think they did OK.

I absolutely expect better results this year, and so far in FA, that is proving true. The draft will be decided in a few weeks! :)

I actually have that data, so if I can get some time in the next day or so, I’ll edit the post to include it.

a simplifid version in a comment, will try a post here to day or tomarrow if someone else smarter doesnt volenteer first.

That was the essence of my earlier post.

Some seem to be more invested in “being proven right” than seeing the team do well.

I’m with you- I just want them to win.

I don’t think you should judge a coach, especially a rookie one, until after the 3rd year.

I’m impressed that you could work a quote from Machiavelli into a football blog. That’s great.

Or healthcare reform?

reagan: “Is this mic on? Testing, testing, we begin bombing Moscow in five minutes”! He knew how to get attention at the right time…

I did a poll asking how long a coach should have before being fired, and while I agree one terrible season is very bad, and 8-8 is average, 79 percent of fans said give them 2 or more seasons.

such things as how long it has been since the teams in question last had a winning season/trip to the post season, coaching change, etc.

The first paragraph explained what I was looking to do: put McDaniels’ first year W/L record into the broader context of what other rookie HC’s have accomplished. It was based on my belief that you cannot make a qualitative judgment based on a single year — nor even on a two-year spread as suggested by McGeorge. IMHO, you need a broader sample.

There are also many other factors which should be considered prior to passing judgment: record from the previous year, injuries, time since last winning season/playoff appearance, was the coach brought in from within or is he an outside hire, did the HC continue a scheme already in place or was it changed . . . the list goes on and on.

I’m not trying to excuse McDaniels from any responsibility for the way the season ended — ultimately, he is the one who holds the responsibility. I simply do find the argument that he does not measure up to other rookie coaches based upon only 1 or 2 years to be a particularly compelling argument.

So far as improvement goes, that remains to be seen. We still have a month of free agency left, then the draft, OTAs, Training Camp, the Pre-season, etc. I truly do not believe there is any valid way of determining how much we will/will not improve at this point in time.

“We needed a back-up QB?” Rocko, have we converted you?

It can be found here