Denver Broncos News - Horse Tracks - 9/15/10

“How long will it take to fix a decade’s worth of problems?” This is where you are being disingenuous or at least unfair with your wording.

We didn’t suck from 1998 to 2008. In fact, we won more games that we lost and never once drafted in the Top 10. Shanny consistently put decent to great teams on the field. There was not one hopeless year, one crappy team that couldn’t win games to save their lives.

McD didn’t inherit a train wreck when he took the job. And to suggest he did (which Boydy did) is total BS. Doing so is the exact same thing as pointing out the Phonz debacle without pointing out the success of our 2009 UFA class or Orton’s solid play.

Now you know I’m no Shanny rah-rah supporter. He did pass along a lot of problems to McD, but he also left the cupboard half stocked. Shanny left McD an 8-8 team with lots of solid talent and lots of glaring holes.

That is the whole story.

And it’s one that doesn’t lead me down the path of getting on my knees to thank God and the heavens above that McD is our coach based on what he has done thus far.

I said last night on my podcast that the biggest curse this team had was 2005. It delayed the inevitable and shrouded what was happening to the roster. We talk about then, because many of the issues the team has now are a result of that….

I recall a topic on the draft from a couple of summers ago. One point that I made in my comments in that topic was that lagged effects tend to mask the true state of affairs. 2005 could be compared to a situation common in college football, in which a soon to be departing coaching staff starts to lose recruiting battles but it’s not completely apparent until the new staff takes over. Short-sighted fans, or fans who thrive on creating dissension, aren’t willing to accept the logic that the new staff inherited a bare cupboard and instead seek to blame the new staff. Even when these fans are willing to acknowledge the point, there’s usually tough sounding rhetoric about how that’s the way the world works and that you have to do the best with what you’re given. The stated rationale for criticizing the new staff is ostensibly rational (or forward looking) but the timing of the criticism seems out of place. Where were they when the wheels were falling off? And why is that the slightest hint of misstep by the new staff (and not even necessarily a real one) treated with scathing criticism?

I was one of the people who found 2005 both encouraging and deeply disconcerting. Throughout the early 2000s, the rebuilding that I anticipated never occurred. The results were encouraging but there was no sense of a team that was building towards even greater success. The playoff appearances raised my hopes but, in all honesty, there was no realistic chance of going all the way and they seemed more like delaying the inevitable.

What’s not as evident at this point is how big the hole was that we barely missed falling into. Moreover, all the quick fixes that were put into place are not a foundation, they’re merely patches. And they’re some pretty good patches but we can’t kid ourselves that — for instance — an old Brian Dawkins is the same as a young Brian Dawkins. You can’t fix that many problems overnight and pretend that a decade-long legacy of mismanagement goes away, as if it could merely slip down the memory hole and the team of the 90s was somehow magically restored and on the field today.

Another of the points I made in that topic two summers ago (which was yours, I believe), was that even though certain positions took time to develop, there was no way around that limitation. DLs take a long time to develop but the only solution to the problem is to draft DLs and put them together with some veteran FAs, who you also have to have if you don’t want a sieve-like defense. There was no way to erase the missing development. A gap can’t be erased. And at the point when I was writing, back in 2008, it was startlingly apparent that we had a gap, and the only solution I could honestly offer was no solution. Just draft some prospects, sign some FAs, and then wait a while.

I shudder to think of where we’d be now if Shanahan hadn’t been fired in 2008. There was certainly enthusiam for rebuilding the defense but many of the ideas still tended to be somewhat incremental. According to some, we should have fired the DC and loaded up on DLs in the draft and everything would then be OK, or might be. Some fans were for obliterating the defense and starting over again and it would have been a good idea if nature hadn’t already done it for us. The exception to the ‘blow it all up’ sentiment — of course — was the offense. That would have left us with two overpaid (by now) stars leading the offense, named Cutler and Marshall. Pardon me if I don’t get excited about what Shanahan left in the cupboard.

A final idea that I’ve advocated over the course of the last two years is rebuilding the OL. This biggest problem with this suggestion was that — in 2008 — it was about as popular as painting over the ceiling on the Sistine Chapel. I tried to sell people on the idea of drafting OLs in 2008 and again in 2009, but the idea didn’t really catch on till the 2009 season progressed. And then it caught on like wild fire. I can’t claim any special knowledge but I will say that it wasn’t that hard to see problems down the road. Shanahan can pat himself on the back for what he thinks he left behind but I’ve had a queasy feeling since 2005. We’re hardly out of the woods yet but there was a far bigger problem then some are willing to acknowledge.

He’s a guard. At least that is where I hope he ends up… For Orton’s sake anyway.