Shanahan - SO overrated (1 Viewer)

[moleculo]

No, you can't say that about almost any team.

Oh yes I can. How about the Miami Dolphins team without Dan Marino? How about the first 49ers superbowl team without Joe Montana? How about the New England Patriots without Tom Brady? How about the Green Bay Packers without Brett Favre? How about the Colts without Peyton Manning? Those would all be pretty terrible superbowl teams, if you ask me.

The 1984 Miami Dolphins had a better defense than the 1986 Denver Broncos (19th in yards and 7th in points for Miami, 21st in yards and 15th in points for Denver), and they had MUCH more offensive talent outside of Marino. Clayton/Duper/Nat Moore are MILES head of Mark Jackson/Vance Johnson/Steve Watson, and the only really good offensive lineman on the '86 Broncos was Bishop, while the '84 Dolphins had Ray Foster, Ed Newman, and Dwight Stevenson, who combined for 11 pro bowls. Oh yeah, and the Dolphins RBs accounted for 1892 yards on 450 carries (4.2 per carry) with 18 TDs between them, while the 1986 Denver Broncos RBs accounted for 1388 yards on 386 carries (3.6 per carry) with 16 TDs between them. Advantage: Miami....

pretty sure the Dolphins were a SB team in 1982 - two years prior to Marino's SB team. Yes, that Dolphins team was more than capable of getting to a SB w/o Marino.

 

[rascal]

Coyer wasn't scapegoated for last year's 9-7 finish. Shanahan doesn't make people scapegoats, because he doesn't need to.

Just do a Google search on Shanahan + Scapegoat and you'll see how wrong you are. Shanahan's MO for the last 8 years has been to scapegoat someone whenever the team fails to meet expectations. Coyer did the best anyone could have done with the mediocre talent Shanahan gave him. Look at how well the Bucs D is doing this year. Coyer is one of the best defensive coordinators in the NFL.

Who else has he scapegoated?Coyer is a brilliant defensive mind, but he's not the coordinator for the Bucs. That'd be Monte Kiffin, a guy with a long history of productive defenses. Crediting Coyer instead of Kiffin is a bit silly.

Looks like Bates is being targeted for this years role.* What to do about Jim Bates?

The Broncos brought in Bates this season as assistant head coach/defense with considerable fanfare. It was reminiscent of the hiring of Ray Rhodes, another "name" defensive guru, and it had to work out better than that. Didn't it?

Um, no. Rhodes lasted two years. The Broncos have largely abandoned Bates' principles. Ironically, secondary coach Bob Slowik, who got the defensive coordinator title because Bates required something more impressive, is now actually coordinating the defense.

Shanahan seldom admits mistakes this quickly, but after this year's defensive collapse, it's hard to come up with a reason to bring Bates back.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2007...ions-lets-get-/

 

[SSOG]

Coyer wasn't scapegoated for last year's 9-7 finish. Shanahan doesn't make people scapegoats, because he doesn't need to.

Just do a Google search on Shanahan + Scapegoat and you'll see how wrong you are. Shanahan's MO for the last 8 years has been to scapegoat someone whenever the team fails to meet expectations. Coyer did the best anyone could have done with the mediocre talent Shanahan gave him. Look at how well the Bucs D is doing this year. Coyer is one of the best defensive coordinators in the NFL.

Who else has he scapegoated?Coyer is a brilliant defensive mind, but he's not the coordinator for the Bucs. That'd be Monte Kiffin, a guy with a long history of productive defenses. Crediting Coyer instead of Kiffin is a bit silly.

Looks like Bates is being targeted for this years role.* What to do about Jim Bates?

The Broncos brought in Bates this season as assistant head coach/defense with considerable fanfare. It was reminiscent of the hiring of Ray Rhodes, another "name" defensive guru, and it had to work out better than that. Didn't it?

Um, no. Rhodes lasted two years. The Broncos have largely abandoned Bates' principles. Ironically, secondary coach Bob Slowik, who got the defensive coordinator title because Bates required something more impressive, is now actually coordinating the defense.

Shanahan seldom admits mistakes this quickly, but after this year's defensive collapse, it's hard to come up with a reason to bring Bates back.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2007...ions-lets-get-/

How's that scapegoating? The article flat-out says that Slowik is doing the job that Bates was brought in to do- and doing it better than Bates was, I might add. If you're paying one employee to do something, and another employee winds up doing it instead, why are you still paying the first employee?I'd hate to see Bates go because I still think he's one hell of a defensive coordinator, but if Shanahan decides to give the title to the guy who's actually doing the coordinating, then more power to him.

 

[moleculo]

I'm not sure how you discern between "scapegoating" and "firing for poot performance", but Shanahan has gone through quite a few defensive coordinators - Greg Robinson, Ray Rhoades, and Larry Coyer, all prior to Bates. None left on good terms.

 

[SSOG]

I'm not sure how you discern between "scapegoating" and "firing for poot performance", but Shanahan has gone through quite a few defensive coordinators - Greg Robinson, Ray Rhoades, and Larry Coyer, all prior to Bates. None left on good terms.

An article on the Greg Robinson firing:

In fact, if the real truth were known, Shanahan has to be kicking himself for not having made this change a year ago. In his postmortem after the Broncos' back-to-reality 1999 season, Shanahan talked openly about his esteem for Rhodes. At that point, though, Shanahan hadn't given up on Robinson.

Now he has. Just don't call Robinson a scapegoat. Because he's not. He simply wore out his welcome with the boss.

Even if Ray Rhodes isn't the solution, Shanahan is making this move because he wants someone else to oversee Denver's defense. Not just someone who can get more out of those linebackers and light a new fire under everyone. Shanahan wants somebody he likes and enjoys working with every day.

Also, Rhodes was never fired. He asked out of his contract for health reasons, and Shanahan granted the request. Whether the health reasons were legitimate or not (Rhodes was coaching the Seahawks the very next season), the fact remains that Rhodes ended that relationship, not Shanahan. That brings the list of coaches who were fired by Shanahan up to 3- Robinson, Gibbs the Younger, and Coyer. One because they didn't get along, one because of outright insubordination, and one because of performance. There might be a couple more that I'm missing (I know he shuffles special teams coordinators a lot, but usually he doesn't fire them, he just moves them to another position), but regardless, I'd say he's been pretty loyal to his staff.

 

[moleculo]

I'm not sure how you discern between "scapegoating" and "firing for poor performance", but Shanahan has gone through quite a few defensive coordinators - Greg Robinson, Ray Rhoades, and Larry Coyer, all prior to Bates. None left on good terms.

An article on the Greg Robinson firing:

In fact, if the real truth were known, Shanahan has to be kicking himself for not having made this change a year ago. In his postmortem after the Broncos' back-to-reality 1999 season, Shanahan talked openly about his esteem for Rhodes. At that point, though, Shanahan hadn't given up on Robinson.

Now he has. Just don't call Robinson a scapegoat. Because he's not. He simply wore out his welcome with the boss.

Even if Ray Rhodes isn't the solution, Shanahan is making this move because he wants someone else to oversee Denver's defense. Not just someone who can get more out of those linebackers and light a new fire under everyone. Shanahan wants somebody he likes and enjoys working with every day.

Also, Rhodes was never fired. He asked out of his contract for health reasons, and Shanahan granted the request. Whether the health reasons were legitimate or not (Rhodes was coaching the Seahawks the very next season), the fact remains that Rhodes ended that relationship, not Shanahan. That brings the list of coaches who were fired by Shanahan up to 3- Robinson, Gibbs the Younger, and Coyer. One because they didn't get along, one because of outright insubordination, and one because of performance. There might be a couple more that I'm missing (I know he shuffles special teams coordinators a lot, but usually he doesn't fire them, he just moves them to another position), but regardless, I'd say he's been pretty loyal to his staff.

in cases of firings, it's often difficult to determine who initiated the move. sometimes supervisors will give employees a chance to resign first, in order to make that person more employable for their next job. I don't know that this happened with Rhodes; I doubt anyone really knows outside of Dove Valley.As far as Robinson - just because the Gazette says he wasn't a scape-goat, doesn't necessarily make it true. Bottom line is that Robinsons D wasn't getting the job done.

all I'm sayin is that the D coordinator has been a veritable revolving door this decade. We are currently on our 4th in 8 years. The defense has been the Achilles heel for this team ever since Wade Phillips was the DC, and I don't know what needs to be done. i wonder how much tinkering Shanahan does on that side of the ball - I wonder if he is bringing in good coaches and dictating what they do, instead of letting them do what they do best.

 

[KoolKat]

You cannot dismiss what Shanahan did with Elway just because he had Elway. The reason you cannot do that is because Shanahan did more with an OLD Elway than any other coach could do with Elway in his prime. John Elway's career without Mike Shanahan was far less successful than with Shanahan. All that proves is that if Shanahan has the talent, he can execute and win Super Bowls. Hopefully Cutler is that future talent.

There are an elite few coaches that have proven that they are capable of coaching talent to Super Bowl victories. Shanahan and Belicheat are the only active ones that have done it multiple times. Again, your argument that this somehow does not count because he had Elway does not hold water. Maybe it would have if Elway had won without Shanahan, but he had not. Are you suggesting that we replace a coach of this elite caliber and reputation in favor of a wash-through or a no name? You cannot hold against Shanahan that he utilized Elway the best he could, resulting in mulitple titles. In fact, you should be forced to recognize, that given the talent, Shanahan can win a Super Bowl. Something that a small fraction of the league's coaches have proven. I suppose you think Cowher should have been fired years before his title, Jeff Fischer should have been gone ages ago, and Tony Dungy should have never got another shot with the Colts, and Belichick should not have got another shot after the Brown's debacle. The fact is there are various reasons why the Broncos have not won a Super Bowl since Elway, and coaching is one of the minor ones.

 

[Liquid Tension]

This guy is the most overhyped genius in the history of football. He gets a decade long hall pass because Elway Terrell Davis wins him and John Elway Superbowls. The world has caught up to him offensively, and his teams, with decent talent, are getting blow out WAY too often. I'd rank him with Marvin Lewis in terms of getting the least out of his team than any coach in the league. (Too early to say that about Norv in SD). How many times has he stood there with a blank stare at post game press conferences this year talking about the other coach doing a much better job than he did preparing their football teams? No, he's not trying to fall on his sword for his team - he's absolutely right. Zero passion and extremely soft. That is Bronco football.

:fixed

Terrell Davis and the OL wins him and John Elway

 

[Liquid Tension]

You cannot dismiss what Shanahan did with Elway just because he had Elway. The reason you cannot do that is because Shanahan did more with an OLD Elway than any other coach could do with Elway in his prime. John Elway's career without Mike Shanahan was far less successful than with Shanahan. All that proves is that if Shanahan has the talent, he can execute and win Super Bowls. Hopefully Cutler is that future talent.There are an elite few coaches that have proven that they are capable of coaching talent to Super Bowl victories. Shanahan and Belicheat are the only active ones that have done it multiple times. Again, your argument that this somehow does not count because he had Elway does not hold water. Maybe it would have if Elway had won without Shanahan, but he had not. Are you suggesting that we replace a coach of this elite caliber and reputation in favor of a wash-through or a no name? You cannot hold against Shanahan that he utilized Elway the best he could, resulting in mulitple titles. In fact, you should be forced to recognize, that given the talent, Shanahan can win a Super Bowl. Something that a small fraction of the league's coaches have proven. I suppose you think Cowher should have been fired years before his title, Jeff Fischer should have been gone ages ago, and Tony Dungy should have never got another shot with the Colts, and Belichick should not have got another shot after the Brown's debacle. The fact is there are various reasons why the Broncos have not won a Super Bowl since Elway, and coaching is one of the minor ones.

My take is that it is very possible that people have caught up with you. It is possible that Shanny is not a genius, it is also possible that he is a decent coach. I am not sure if he is the GM as well, but I thought so and if that is the case he deserves blame.A guy like Jeff Fisher is a great coach who has had poor teams thanks to poor GM work. People get on the coaches a lot, but Coughlin is a great example of a guy who I said impressed me more than any coach I had ever heard in analyzing games (I am on record defending him in these forums over the last 2 years) and knowing exactly what he was thinking during a certain portion of the game. he might not have been warm and fuzzy, but he knows the game.Belichick is obviously great and a few other guys are solid, but Shanny is probably at least an average head coach. I really can't say I see all his decisions, but that is my impression.

 

[massraider]

This guy is the most overhyped genius in the history of football. He gets a decade long hall pass because Elway Terrell Davis wins him and John Elway Superbowls. The world has caught up to him offensively, and his teams, with decent talent, are getting blow out WAY too often. I'd rank him with Marvin Lewis in terms of getting the least out of his team than any coach in the league. (Too early to say that about Norv in SD). How many times has he stood there with a blank stare at post game press conferences this year talking about the other coach doing a much better job than he did preparing their football teams? No, he's not trying to fall on his sword for his team - he's absolutely right. Zero passion and extremely soft. That is Bronco football.

:fixed

Terrell Davis and the OL wins him and John Elway

Alex Gibbs.I don't think Shanahan is a bad coach, but sometimes a change is needed.

 

[KoolKat]

You cannot dismiss what Shanahan did with Elway just because he had Elway. The reason you cannot do that is because Shanahan did more with an OLD Elway than any other coach could do with Elway in his prime. John Elway's career without Mike Shanahan was far less successful than with Shanahan. All that proves is that if Shanahan has the talent, he can execute and win Super Bowls. Hopefully Cutler is that future talent.There are an elite few coaches that have proven that they are capable of coaching talent to Super Bowl victories. Shanahan and Belicheat are the only active ones that have done it multiple times. Again, your argument that this somehow does not count because he had Elway does not hold water. Maybe it would have if Elway had won without Shanahan, but he had not. Are you suggesting that we replace a coach of this elite caliber and reputation in favor of a wash-through or a no name? You cannot hold against Shanahan that he utilized Elway the best he could, resulting in mulitple titles. In fact, you should be forced to recognize, that given the talent, Shanahan can win a Super Bowl. Something that a small fraction of the league's coaches have proven. I suppose you think Cowher should have been fired years before his title, Jeff Fischer should have been gone ages ago, and Tony Dungy should have never got another shot with the Colts, and Belichick should not have got another shot after the Brown's debacle. The fact is there are various reasons why the Broncos have not won a Super Bowl since Elway, and coaching is one of the minor ones.

My take is that it is very possible that people have caught up with you. It is possible that Shanny is not a genius, it is also possible that he is a decent coach. I am not sure if he is the GM as well, but I thought so and if that is the case he deserves blame.A guy like Jeff Fisher is a great coach who has had poor teams thanks to poor GM work. People get on the coaches a lot, but Coughlin is a great example of a guy who I said impressed me more than any coach I had ever heard in analyzing games (I am on record defending him in these forums over the last 2 years) and knowing exactly what he was thinking during a certain portion of the game. he might not have been warm and fuzzy, but he knows the game.Belichick is obviously great and a few other guys are solid, but Shanny is probably at least an average head coach. I really can't say I see all his decisions, but that is my impression.

How can you possibly say he is an average coach when he is one of two active coaches who have won multiple Super Bowls? I can understand criticizing him as a GM, which he unofficially is. However, his coaching is of the elite level.

 

[KoolKat]

This guy is the most overhyped genius in the history of football. He gets a decade long hall pass because Elway Terrell Davis wins him and John Elway Superbowls. The world has caught up to him offensively, and his teams, with decent talent, are getting blow out WAY too often. I'd rank him with Marvin Lewis in terms of getting the least out of his team than any coach in the league. (Too early to say that about Norv in SD). How many times has he stood there with a blank stare at post game press conferences this year talking about the other coach doing a much better job than he did preparing their football teams? No, he's not trying to fall on his sword for his team - he's absolutely right. Zero passion and extremely soft. That is Bronco football.

:fixed

Terrell Davis and the OL wins him and John Elway

Alex Gibbs.I don't think Shanahan is a bad coach, but sometimes a change is needed.

Who gave Gibbs a shot? Who drafted Davis? Who assembled the O-Line? Who called the plays to win the Super Bowls? Who utilized Elway better than anybody?MIKE SHANAHAN

 

[H.K.]

Asssuming the stuff on Wiki is accurate, here is what he has done in his career:

Posted the most wins in pro football history in a three-year period (46 in 1996-98).

Won the most postseason games in history over a two-year period (seven, 1997-98).

Been undefeated and untied for three consecutive regular seasons (1996-98) at home, just the second team ever to be undefeated and untied at home in three consecutive years.

In 2004, he joined the exclusive club of head coaches to post 100 wins in his first 10 seasons with one club, finishing the campaign and decade tied for fourth on this ultra-impressive list of 12 coaches, six of whom are in the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

Joins Vince Lombardi, Don Shula, Chuck Noll, Jimmy Johnson and Bill Belichick as the only six coaches to win back-to-back Super Bowls.

He is the second coach in history to win two Super Bowl titles in his first four years coaching a team (Shula did it first and

Belichick did it later, winning two Super Bowls in his first four seasons in New England).

Highest winning percentage in Denver history (.646).

Shanahan is one of seven coaches in pro football history to post four wins in one postseason along with Tom Flores, Joe Gibbs, Brian Billick, Bill Cowher, Tony Dungy and Tom Coughlin.

Only coach with seven postseason wins in a two-year period.

The all-time high of 636 points in a season came from the 1994 Super Bowl Champion San Francisco 49ers, for whom Shanahan was the offensive coordinator.

During his NFL career, Shanahan has been a part of teams that have played in 10 Conference Championship Games, in addition to his six Super Bowl appearances, five with Denver and Super Bowl XXIX with San Francisco.

Bottom line: Not overrated & probably a first ballot HOFer

 

[BusMan]

Coming from H.K., that is a serious compliment.

Shanahan has something to prove in 2008, but he is definitely not on the hot sheet.

 

[rascal]

Coming from H.K., that is a serious compliment.Shanahan has something to prove in 2008, but he is definitely not on the hot sheet.

I agree.The moves that have been made thus far are not indicitive of someone who feels there job security is in doubt.

 

[Ghost Rider]

You cannot dismiss what Shanahan did with Elway just because he had Elway. The reason you cannot do that is because Shanahan did more with an OLD Elway than any other coach could do with Elway in his prime. John Elway's career without Mike Shanahan was far less successful than with Shanahan. All that proves is that if Shanahan has the talent, he can execute and win Super Bowls. Hopefully Cutler is that future talent.There are an elite few coaches that have proven that they are capable of coaching talent to Super Bowl victories. Shanahan and Belicheat are the only active ones that have done it multiple times. Again, your argument that this somehow does not count because he had Elway does not hold water. Maybe it would have if Elway had won without Shanahan, but he had not. Are you suggesting that we replace a coach of this elite caliber and reputation in favor of a wash-through or a no name? You cannot hold against Shanahan that he utilized Elway the best he could, resulting in mulitple titles. In fact, you should be forced to recognize, that given the talent, Shanahan can win a Super Bowl. Something that a small fraction of the league's coaches have proven. I suppose you think Cowher should have been fired years before his title, Jeff Fischer should have been gone ages ago, and Tony Dungy should have never got another shot with the Colts, and Belichick should not have got another shot after the Brown's debacle. The fact is there are various reasons why the Broncos have not won a Super Bowl since Elway, and coaching is one of the minor ones.

My take is that it is very possible that people have caught up with you.

If people have caught up with Shanahan, then how in the world did he have the Broncos in the AFC title game 26 months ago, with JAKE PLUMMER as his quarterback?

 

[Pai Mei]

This guy is the most overhyped genius in the history of football. He gets a decade long hall pass because Elway Terrell Davis wins him and John Elway Superbowls. The world has caught up to him offensively, and his teams, with decent talent, are getting blow out WAY too often. I'd rank him with Marvin Lewis in terms of getting the least out of his team than any coach in the league. (Too early to say that about Norv in SD). How many times has he stood there with a blank stare at post game press conferences this year talking about the other coach doing a much better job than he did preparing their football teams? No, he's not trying to fall on his sword for his team - he's absolutely right. Zero passion and extremely soft. That is Bronco football.

:fixed

That's for sure. Who can forget when TD left the super bowl vs the Packers in the third quarter with an injury. He came back but while he was out the Packers started to dominate the game.

 

[redman]

The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle.

Shanahan, as HK listed, has done some very impressive things. The problem for him is that they all date back 5-10 years, and he's shown no ability to replicate what he did with Elway. What players has he developed? What innovations has he come up with? Since Elway retired, he traded away arguably the best offensive player his team has had - Portis - after only two seasons in which Portis was an absolute world-beater in his system. His post-Elway teams are also 1-4 in the playoffs, and have only had one division championship.

He's a likely HoF'er, but at the same time he's done little in the last decade to remind people why that is the case.

 

[moleculo]

The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle.

Shanahan, as HK listed, has done some very impressive things. The problem for him is that they all date back 5-10 years, and he's shown no ability to replicate what he did with Elway. What players has he developed? What innovations has he come up with? Since Elway retired, he traded away arguably the best offensive player his team has had - Portis - after only two seasons in which Portis was an absolute world-beater in his system. His post-Elway teams are also 1-4 in the playoffs, and have only had one division championship.

He's a likely HoF'er, but at the same time he's done little in the last decade to remind people why that is the case.

I'll bite.What players has he developed - Not sure how to interpret this. Let's say pro-bowlers in the post-Elway era - here's the list of skill position/defensive/ST players to make a pro-bowl w/o Elway:

Detron Smith

Trevor Pryce

Brian Griese

Rod Smith

Dwayne Carswell

Deltha O'Neal

Ian Gold

Al Wilson

Jason Elam

Clinton Portis

Champ Bailey

John Lynch

Jake Plummer

You can discount Bailey & Lynch if you want as they were premier players prior to coming to Denver - the same can't really be said for any of the others here. Outside of those two, I'd say that any of the other guys on this list have failed to surpass what they did in Denver on another team.

We can also throw in the outstanding draft of 2006 as well - Cutler, Marshall, Scheffler, and Dumervill are all progressing nicely.

What innovations has he come up with?

Well, for starters, the zone running game was an invention of Shanahan in conjunction with alex gibbs. This basic scheme has been adapted by Houston, Atlanta, GB (I'm not sure who else is running similar schemes). I think it's fair to say that the ZB running game has been a major influence to the game over the past decade.

Post season success (or lack thereof):

While the post-season success hasn't been at a level Denver fans have become accustomed to, I'd attribute that to no home games - well, two home games, where they handed Brady his first ever post-season loss, and lost to the eventual SB champs, Pittsburgh. They simply haven't won the division more than once since 1999. That's the problem right there. of course, this AFCW is the division of the 2003 SB Raiders, the Chiefs w/ Holmes & Gonzo, and LT and the Chargers. The Broncos teams since 1999 have been mediocre, whereas their opponents have been one level shy of NE/Indy. Let's face it - the AFC is highly competitive, the AFCW especially so. While I would have liked to see more wins in the playoffs, I'm pretty happy that Shanahan has been able to roll the team over and remain relatively competitive without a complete tear down and rebuild.

 

[H.K.]

He's a likely HoF'er, but at the same time he's done little in the last decade to remind people why that is the case.

He definitely isn't top of my mind when thinking about the greatest coaches ever, but FWIW, he's currently #17 in NFL history for regular season wins, and who knows how long he'll coach. Should be interesting to see what he does with the remainder of his career. IF he wins another SB, it probably would alter his legacy quite a bit.

 

[redman]

The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle.

Shanahan, as HK listed, has done some very impressive things. The problem for him is that they all date back 5-10 years, and he's shown no ability to replicate what he did with Elway. What players has he developed? What innovations has he come up with? Since Elway retired, he traded away arguably the best offensive player his team has had - Portis - after only two seasons in which Portis was an absolute world-beater in his system. His post-Elway teams are also 1-4 in the playoffs, and have only had one division championship.

He's a likely HoF'er, but at the same time he's done little in the last decade to remind people why that is the case.

I'll bite.What players has he developed - Not sure how to interpret this. Let's say pro-bowlers in the post-Elway era - here's the list of skill position/defensive/ST players to make a pro-bowl w/o Elway:

Detron Smith

Trevor Pryce

Brian Griese

Rod Smith

Dwayne Carswell

Deltha O'Neal

Ian Gold

Al Wilson

Jason Elam

Clinton Portis

Champ Bailey

John Lynch

Jake Plummer

You can discount Bailey & Lynch if you want as they were premier players prior to coming to Denver - the same can't really be said for any of the others here. Outside of those two, I'd say that any of the other guys on this list have failed to surpass what they did in Denver on another team.

We can also throw in the outstanding draft of 2006 as well - Cutler, Marshall, Scheffler, and Dumervill are all progressing nicely.

What innovations has he come up with?

Well, for starters, the zone running game was an invention of Shanahan in conjunction with alex gibbs. This basic scheme has been adapted by Houston, Atlanta, GB (I'm not sure who else is running similar schemes). I think it's fair to say that the ZB running game has been a major influence to the game over the past decade.

Post season success (or lack thereof):

While the post-season success hasn't been at a level Denver fans have become accustomed to, I'd attribute that to no home games - well, two home games, where they handed Brady his first ever post-season loss, and lost to the eventual SB champs, Pittsburgh. They simply haven't won the division more than once since 1999. That's the problem right there. of course, this AFCW is the division of the 2003 SB Raiders, the Chiefs w/ Holmes & Gonzo, and LT and the Chargers. The Broncos teams since 1999 have been mediocre, whereas their opponents have been one level shy of NE/Indy. Let's face it - the AFC is highly competitive, the AFCW especially so. While I would have liked to see more wins in the playoffs, I'm pretty happy that Shanahan has been able to roll the team over and remain relatively competitive without a complete tear down and rebuild.

You're giving him credit for the development of defensive and special teams players? I agree that there have been some good AFC West teams in the last ten years, but it's not like they've had more than one at a time in most cases. The Raiders have basically been supplanted by the Chargers as the division leader over the course of this decade, and the Chiefs had some explosive offenses but also some very inept defenses. There has been ample opportunity for the team sporting the most continuity and certainly best coaching credentials in that division to have won it two or three times this decade, and that hasn't happened.

 

[KoolKat]

The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle. Shanahan, as HK listed, has done some very impressive things. The problem for him is that they all date back 5-10 years, and he's shown no ability to replicate what he did with Elway. What players has he developed? What innovations has he come up with? Since Elway retired, he traded away arguably the best offensive player his team has had - Portis - after only two seasons in which Portis was an absolute world-beater in his system. His post-Elway teams are also 1-4 in the playoffs, and have only had one division championship. He's a likely HoF'er, but at the same time he's done little in the last decade to remind people why that is the case.

First off, Shanny has shown an ability to replicate, just 26 months ago, when we were at home in the AFC Championship after having handed Brady his first ever playoff loss. All of this with Jake Plummer at QB.Secondly, he has developed many players, as has been listed before. Using a middle second round pick, Shanny was able to indirectly acquire Champ Bailey and Tatum Bell (who was a large part of our ability to land Bly). Al Wilson was a Shanahan guy. Trevor Pryce, Dan Neil, Bertrand Berry, Reggie Hayward, DJ Williams, Brandon Marshall, 6th round pick Jeb Putzier, Terrell Davis, Reuben Droughns, Tom Nalen, Matt Lepsis, Darrent Williams, Ian Gold, Elvis Dumervil, all of these guys were either drafted by Shanahan or Shanahan played a huge part in their development. All of those are off the top of my head. Innovations include his renovated boot-leg, zone blocking scheme, and scripting the first 15 plays. Again, all off the top of my head. Name another active coach that has produced more innovations, you will be hard pressed to do so.I would never in a minute take back the Portis trade. I would much rather have Champ Bailey alone, much less the fact that T Bell was thrown into the deal (indirestly leading to us landing Dre Bly). I agree that if we were to judge Shanahan strictly on his last 9 season, he is not a HoF coach. However, I have demonstarted before, that you cannot exclude the Elway years when regarding Shanahan. In fact, when regarding those years one is forced to realize that Shanny has and can coach talent to the SB.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Shanahan, as HK listed, has done some very impressive things. The problem for him is that they all date back 5-10 years,

Shanahan had the Broncos in the AFC title game two seasons ago.

and he's shown no ability to replicate what he did with Elway.

No ability? Getting to the AFC title game with Jake Plummer at QB didn't impress you at all? Beating the two-time defending champion Patriots at home didn't impress you?

Since Elway retired, he traded away arguably the best offensive player his team has had - Portis - after only two seasons in which Portis was an absolute world-beater in his system.

The Portis trade was a good one, as Baily has been more valuable to the Broncos defense than Portis was to the Broncos offense. Really, that trade was win/win, as both teams benefited.

His post-Elway teams are also 1-4 in the playoffs, and have only had one division championship.

Those numbers are definitely disappointing, but he hasn't had an above average QB post-Elway until now. With Cutler entering his 3rd year, I think it goes without saying that Shanny's Broncos need to make some serious noise in the next few seasons, or else his greatness will deservingly be called into question. And to make a comparison, Jeff Fisher is still talked about in glowing terms, despite a lack of real success over the last five years, so why shouldn't Shanahan, who was won two more Super Bowls than Fisher, get the same courtesy?

 

[redman]

Shanahan, as HK listed, has done some very impressive things. The problem for him is that they all date back 5-10 years,

Shanahan had the Broncos in the AFC title game two seasons ago.

and he's shown no ability to replicate what he did with Elway.

No ability? Getting to the AFC title game with Jake Plummer at QB didn't impress you at all? Beating the two-time defending champion Patriots at home didn't impress you?

Since Elway retired, he traded away arguably the best offensive player his team has had - Portis - after only two seasons in which Portis was an absolute world-beater in his system.

The Portis trade was a good one, as Baily has been more valuable to the Broncos defense than Portis was to the Broncos offense. Really, that trade was win/win, as both teams benefited.

His post-Elway teams are also 1-4 in the playoffs, and have only had one division championship.

Those numbers are definitely disappointing, but he hasn't had an above average QB post-Elway until now. With Cutler entering his 3rd year, I think it goes without saying that Shanny's Broncos need to make some serious noise in the next few seasons, or else his greatness will deservingly be called into question. And to make a comparison, Jeff Fisher is still talked about in glowing terms, despite a lack of real success over the last five years, so why shouldn't Shanahan, who was won two more Super Bowls than Fisher, get the same courtesy?

The Bears were in the Super Bowl a year ago, but that doesn't mean I've been at all impressed with how they've been run over the last decade either. I'm talking about a pattern here, so a single example of some playoff success is an inadequate retort, and frankly invites the question, "Is that all you have to point to?"Likewise, Jeff Fisher is no comparison. Shanahan works for an organization that spends to the cap every year. Frankly, they've somehow escaped criticism that the Redskins have received for signing veterans for too much money. Not so the Titans, which operate as a "small market" cash poor team that emphasizes the draft more than FA. In other words, Fisher has less to work with. I'd also submit to you that the AFC South has overall been a tougher division in the last decade than has the AFC West, even with the inclusion of the expansion Texans.

 

[KoolKat]

Shanahan, as HK listed, has done some very impressive things. The problem for him is that they all date back 5-10 years,

Shanahan had the Broncos in the AFC title game two seasons ago.

and he's shown no ability to replicate what he did with Elway.

No ability? Getting to the AFC title game with Jake Plummer at QB didn't impress you at all? Beating the two-time defending champion Patriots at home didn't impress you?

Since Elway retired, he traded away arguably the best offensive player his team has had - Portis - after only two seasons in which Portis was an absolute world-beater in his system.

The Portis trade was a good one, as Baily has been more valuable to the Broncos defense than Portis was to the Broncos offense. Really, that trade was win/win, as both teams benefited.

His post-Elway teams are also 1-4 in the playoffs, and have only had one division championship.

Those numbers are definitely disappointing, but he hasn't had an above average QB post-Elway until now. With Cutler entering his 3rd year, I think it goes without saying that Shanny's Broncos need to make some serious noise in the next few seasons, or else his greatness will deservingly be called into question. And to make a comparison, Jeff Fisher is still talked about in glowing terms, despite a lack of real success over the last five years, so why shouldn't Shanahan, who was won two more Super Bowls than Fisher, get the same courtesy?

The Bears were in the Super Bowl a year ago, but that doesn't mean I've been at all impressed with how they've been run over the last decade either. I'm talking about a pattern here, so a single example of some playoff success is an inadequate retort, and frankly invites the question, "Is that all you have to point to?"Likewise, Jeff Fisher is no comparison. Shanahan works for an organization that spends to the cap every year. Frankly, they've somehow escaped criticism that the Redskins have received for signing veterans for too much money. Not so the Titans, which operate as a "small market" cash poor team that emphasizes the draft more than FA. In other words, Fisher has less to work with. I'd also submit to you that the AFC South has overall been a tougher division in the last decade than has the AFC West, even with the inclusion of the expansion Texans.

Kind of like a mosquito in a nudist colony, I don't know where to begin.The Bear example is a relevant comparison. We are not talking about overrall team success, we are talking about coaching ability. Having seen Lovie Smith take a team to the Super Bowl, would you not say that he is a better coach than you would have said before he had accomplished the feat? Obviously, you would say that he is a better coach after having proven what he has. The same goes for Shanahan. You said that he has shown nothing to make us believe he can replicate his late-90s success. You claim this truism as absolute. When you are proven wrong, you say, "is that all you've got?" For the most part yes, but that does not make the example irrelevant. Just because terrorists have only succeeded in one airplane suicide bomb attack does not imply that they are never going to be able to again. If we are only looking for patterns as you claim, you can say that the pattern is that there is no evidence airplane suicide bombing will have possible successes in the future. Clearly, your logic is flawed. My reasoning tells me that if it can happen once, it can happen again and is more likely to happen again.The Broncos have not escaped criticism for the signings they have made ie Dale Carter, Darrell Gardner, Anthony Miller, etc. This is especially true in my own personal criticism I have for the Broncos. Shanny may not be the best GM, but his coaching is on the level of the elite. You are incorrect, in my opinion, in saying that the AFC South has been more competitive than the AFCW over the last decade. These are subjective opinions, and therefore irrelevant to the argument. The point about Fischer that is being made is that just because a coach is not successful year in and year out does not necessarily degrade their coaching ability.

 

[Ghost Rider]

The Bears were in the Super Bowl a year ago, but that doesn't mean I've been at all impressed with how they've been run over the last decade either.

Lovie Smith has two winning seasons as an NFL head coach; Shanahan has 11. I am sure you can figure out what the difference is there.

I'm talking about a pattern here, so a single example of some playoff success is an inadequate retort, and frankly invites the question, "Is that all you have to point to?"

Fact: Mike Shanahan's Denver Broncos have won 10 or more games in eight of his 13 seasons there. Question: Are we now ignoring playoff success as a barometer of how good of a coach one is? Bill Cowher was dogged for years because of his many AFC title losses and his inability to lead his team to a title. Should we ignore his Super Bowl win because it is merely a single example of playoff success, meaning his many playoff failures trump that one Super Bowl win?

Likewise, Jeff Fisher is no comparison. Shanahan works for an organization that spends to the cap every year. Frankly, they've somehow escaped criticism that the Redskins have received for signing veterans for too much money. Not so the Titans, which operate as a "small market" cash poor team that emphasizes the draft more than FA. In other words, Fisher has less to work with.

I won't deny that Fisher has done more with less, but his lack of playoff success is quite telling.

I'd also submit to you that the AFC South has overall been a tougher division in the last decade than has the AFC West, even with the inclusion of the expansion Texans.

I'll have to research this more later when I have more time, but on the surface, it appears like bunk. The AFC South's only consistent team over the last decade has been the Colts. Meanwhile, the AFC West has seen every team win at least 12 games at least once. 2007 was the obvious exception, as the AFC South was much better than the AFC West last season.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Okay, it has been six years since the divisions went from six to eight, so since then, here is the combined record of the AFC South and AFC West for each season and the number of playoff appearances by each team:

2002:

AFC South 31-33

AFC West 36-28

2003:

AFC South 34-30

AFC West 31-33

2004:

AFC South 33-31

AFC West 34-30

2005:

AFC South 32-32

AFC West 36-28

2006:

AFC South 34-30

AFC West 34-30

2007:

AFC South: 42-22

AFC West 26-38

Indianapolis 6

Tennessee 3

Jacksonville 2

Houston 0

Denver 3

San Diego 3

Kansas City 2

Oakland 1

So, the AFC West has the edge in that it has been better in three of the six seasons, while the AFC South was better in two seasons (with the sixth being a tie), and the AFC South has the edge in total playoff appearances (11-9), but considering how awesome the Colts have been this decade and how hapless the Raiders have been the last five years, for it to be a virtual tie speaks to how tough the rest of the AFC West has been and how inconsistent the rest of the AFC South has been.

 

[redman]

Shanahan, as HK listed, has done some very impressive things. The problem for him is that they all date back 5-10 years,

Shanahan had the Broncos in the AFC title game two seasons ago.

and he's shown no ability to replicate what he did with Elway.

No ability? Getting to the AFC title game with Jake Plummer at QB didn't impress you at all? Beating the two-time defending champion Patriots at home didn't impress you?

Since Elway retired, he traded away arguably the best offensive player his team has had - Portis - after only two seasons in which Portis was an absolute world-beater in his system.

The Portis trade was a good one, as Baily has been more valuable to the Broncos defense than Portis was to the Broncos offense. Really, that trade was win/win, as both teams benefited.

His post-Elway teams are also 1-4 in the playoffs, and have only had one division championship.

Those numbers are definitely disappointing, but he hasn't had an above average QB post-Elway until now. With Cutler entering his 3rd year, I think it goes without saying that Shanny's Broncos need to make some serious noise in the next few seasons, or else his greatness will deservingly be called into question. And to make a comparison, Jeff Fisher is still talked about in glowing terms, despite a lack of real success over the last five years, so why shouldn't Shanahan, who was won two more Super Bowls than Fisher, get the same courtesy?

The Bears were in the Super Bowl a year ago, but that doesn't mean I've been at all impressed with how they've been run over the last decade either. I'm talking about a pattern here, so a single example of some playoff success is an inadequate retort, and frankly invites the question, "Is that all you have to point to?"Likewise, Jeff Fisher is no comparison. Shanahan works for an organization that spends to the cap every year. Frankly, they've somehow escaped criticism that the Redskins have received for signing veterans for too much money. Not so the Titans, which operate as a "small market" cash poor team that emphasizes the draft more than FA. In other words, Fisher has less to work with. I'd also submit to you that the AFC South has overall been a tougher division in the last decade than has the AFC West, even with the inclusion of the expansion Texans.

Kind of like a mosquito in a nudist colony, I don't know where to begin.The Bear example is a relevant comparison. We are not talking about overrall team success, we are talking about coaching ability. Having seen Lovie Smith take a team to the Super Bowl, would you not say that he is a better coach than you would have said before he had accomplished the feat? Obviously, you would say that he is a better coach after having proven what he has. The same goes for Shanahan. You said that he has shown nothing to make us believe he can replicate his late-90s success. You claim this truism as absolute. When you are proven wrong, you say, "is that all you've got?" For the most part yes, but that does not make the example irrelevant. Just because terrorists have only succeeded in one airplane suicide bomb attack does not imply that they are never going to be able to again. If we are only looking for patterns as you claim, you can say that the pattern is that there is no evidence airplane suicide bombing will have possible successes in the future. Clearly, your logic is flawed. My reasoning tells me that if it can happen once, it can happen again and is more likely to happen again.The Broncos have not escaped criticism for the signings they have made ie Dale Carter, Darrell Gardner, Anthony Miller, etc. This is especially true in my own personal criticism I have for the Broncos. Shanny may not be the best GM, but his coaching is on the level of the elite. You are incorrect, in my opinion, in saying that the AFC South has been more competitive than the AFCW over the last decade. These are subjective opinions, and therefore irrelevant to the argument. The point about Fischer that is being made is that just because a coach is not successful year in and year out does not necessarily degrade their coaching ability.

Here comes the quinine. I give Lovie Smith credit for reaching the Super Bowl, but not so much that I think that his trip there makes him a great coach. I think he's a very strong defensive coach; he's a mixed bag as a head coach at best. Said another way, what season would you point to as being most reflective of Smith's tenure in Chicago? For me, I'd be hard pressed to choose between 2005 and 2007; the 2006 trip to the Super Bowl was a clear exception . . . so far. Your other arguments are sophistry at best. Just because Shanahan hasn't had playoff success in the last decade, doesn't mean he won't do it again? Philsophically I agree, but so what? A decade in the NFL is an eternity, especially for coaches. How long are we supposed to wait for this new playoff success? As long as we're being philosophical, can't we make the very same argument five, 10, 25 years from now? If Shanahan's career had begun in 1999, how long do you suppose he would have remained as the Broncos' head coach? I'd suggest that his last decade is most closely matched by Schottenheimer's performance with the Chargers, and we all saw that he lasted six years with that team before the contrast between regular season success and postseason failure became too much for the franchise. And of course Shotty never had control over personnel in San Diego the way that Shanny does in Denver, making Shanny's recent mediocrity all the more comprehensive. The fact is that, like Brian Billick (another overrated head coach), his most recent years have been looked at in the rosy light of ever-more-ancient playoff success and championships rather than for what they are. Again, I don't at all think Shanahan sucks - I've said he's a likely Hall of Fame inductee as a multiple Super Bowl winning coach. I do think that, however, people tend to place too much weight upon his performance in the 1990's, and too little in the 2000's.

 

[redman]

Okay, it has been six years since the divisions went from six to eight, so since then, here is the combined record of the AFC South and AFC West for each season and the number of playoff appearances by each team:2002:AFC South 31-33AFC West 36-282003:AFC South 34-30AFC West 31-332004:AFC South 33-31AFC West 34-302005:AFC South 32-32AFC West 36-282006:AFC South 34-30AFC West 34-302007:AFC South: 42-22AFC West 26-38Indianapolis 6Tennessee 3Jacksonville 2Houston 0Denver 3San Diego 3Kansas City 2Oakland 1So, the AFC West has the edge in that it has been better in three of the six seasons, while the AFC South was better in two seasons (with the sixth being a tie), and the AFC South has the edge in total playoff appearances (11-9), but considering how awesome the Colts have been this decade and how hapless the Raiders have been the last five years, for it to be a virtual tie speaks to how tough the rest of the AFC West has been and how inconsistent the rest of the AFC South has been.

I mentioned Houston because the top-to-bottom comparisons between the two divisions inevitably favor the AFC West which didn't have an expansion team. However, my impression was that the AFC South over that time has more often had multiple very good teams than has the AFC West, which is why I mentioned how the Raiders and the Chargers were never good at the same time. In quickly looking at the standings, there are more similarities than differences there, so the argument is probably not a good one. I'll withdraw it.

 

[KoolKat]

Here comes the quinine. I give Lovie Smith credit for reaching the Super Bowl, but not so much that I think that his trip there makes him a great coach. I think he's a very strong defensive coach; he's a mixed bag as a head coach at best. Said another way, what season would you point to as being most reflective of Smith's tenure in Chicago? For me, I'd be hard pressed to choose between 2005 and 2007; the 2006 trip to the Super Bowl was a clear exception . . . so far. Your other arguments are sophistry at best. Just because Shanahan hasn't had playoff success in the last decade, doesn't mean he won't do it again? Philsophically I agree, but so what? A decade in the NFL is an eternity, especially for coaches. How long are we supposed to wait for this new playoff success? As long as we're being philosophical, can't we make the very same argument five, 10, 25 years from now? If Shanahan's career had begun in 1999, how long do you suppose he would have remained as the Broncos' head coach? I'd suggest that his last decade is most closely matched by Schottenheimer's performance with the Chargers, and we all saw that he lasted six years with that team before the contrast between regular season success and postseason failure became too much for the franchise. And of course Shotty never had control over personnel in San Diego the way that Shanny does in Denver, making Shanny's recent mediocrity all the more comprehensive. The fact is that, like Brian Billick (another overrated head coach), his most recent years have been looked at in the rosy light of ever-more-ancient playoff success and championships rather than for what they are. Again, I don't at all think Shanahan sucks - I've said he's a likely Hall of Fame inductee as a multiple Super Bowl winning coach. I do think that, however, people tend to place too much weight upon his performance in the 1990's, and too little in the 2000's.

My question was not whether you think Lovie Smith is a great coach. My question is whether you regard Smith as a better, more capable coach before or after he went to the Super Bowl. This is obviously a loaded question for which there is only one reasonable answer. Again, you say Shanahan has not had playoff success in a decade which is quite simply incorrect. Beating a team who is the dynasty of its time, and making it too the AFC Championship is playoff success, and we need only look back less than 2 1/2 years to find that success. My argument is that since we have seen Shanahan be successful within the last 26 months, there is good reason to think he will be successful again. I am not saying that he will be successful again based on his late-90s success.Had Shanahan's career begun in 1999, he would have certainly been fired by now. However, this argument does not hold water, because as I have said before and will say again. You cannot dismiss the successes Shanahan had with Elway strictly because he had Elway. Refer to my other posts for the reasoning behind that.The Billick comparison is unfair, because Billick was an offensive-minded coach who always had a terrible O which was compensated by a stellar D. Shanahan is an Offesive-minded coach who has always had a productive, successful offense, that is let down by the defense. I agree that Shanny has made some questionable GM moves, but all that implies is that he is not the best GM, not that his coaching ability is any worse. And I don't think anyone is claiming he is the best or even an elite GM so he cannot be overrated in that sense.

 

[redman]

Here comes the quinine. I give Lovie Smith credit for reaching the Super Bowl, but not so much that I think that his trip there makes him a great coach. I think he's a very strong defensive coach; he's a mixed bag as a head coach at best. Said another way, what season would you point to as being most reflective of Smith's tenure in Chicago? For me, I'd be hard pressed to choose between 2005 and 2007; the 2006 trip to the Super Bowl was a clear exception . . . so far. Your other arguments are sophistry at best. Just because Shanahan hasn't had playoff success in the last decade, doesn't mean he won't do it again? Philsophically I agree, but so what? A decade in the NFL is an eternity, especially for coaches. How long are we supposed to wait for this new playoff success? As long as we're being philosophical, can't we make the very same argument five, 10, 25 years from now? If Shanahan's career had begun in 1999, how long do you suppose he would have remained as the Broncos' head coach? I'd suggest that his last decade is most closely matched by Schottenheimer's performance with the Chargers, and we all saw that he lasted six years with that team before the contrast between regular season success and postseason failure became too much for the franchise. And of course Shotty never had control over personnel in San Diego the way that Shanny does in Denver, making Shanny's recent mediocrity all the more comprehensive. The fact is that, like Brian Billick (another overrated head coach), his most recent years have been looked at in the rosy light of ever-more-ancient playoff success and championships rather than for what they are. Again, I don't at all think Shanahan sucks - I've said he's a likely Hall of Fame inductee as a multiple Super Bowl winning coach. I do think that, however, people tend to place too much weight upon his performance in the 1990's, and too little in the 2000's.

My question was not whether you think Lovie Smith is a great coach. My question is whether you regard Smith as a better, more capable coach before or after he went to the Super Bowl. This is obviously a loaded question for which there is only one reasonable answer. Again, you say Shanahan has not had playoff success in a decade which is quite simply incorrect. Beating a team who is the dynasty of its time, and making it too the AFC Championship is playoff success, and we need only look back less than 2 1/2 years to find that success. My argument is that since we have seen Shanahan be successful within the last 26 months, there is good reason to think he will be successful again. I am not saying that he will be successful again based on his late-90s success.Had Shanahan's career begun in 1999, he would have certainly been fired by now. However, this argument does not hold water, because as I have said before and will say again. You cannot dismiss the successes Shanahan had with Elway strictly because he had Elway. Refer to my other posts for the reasoning behind that.The Billick comparison is unfair, because Billick was an offensive-minded coach who always had a terrible O which was compensated by a stellar D. Shanahan is an Offesive-minded coach who has always had a productive, successful offense, that is let down by the defense. I agree that Shanny has made some questionable GM moves, but all that implies is that he is not the best GM, not that his coaching ability is any worse. And I don't think anyone is claiming he is the best or even an elite GM so he cannot be overrated in that sense.

Summary: I'm so hopelessly living in the past that I can't possibly be objective about the last decade. If "playoff success" to you means an 83/1 regular season/playoff win ratio over nine years, then I'm glad you're easily satisfied. Repeatedly pimping that lone playoff win as ". . . beating a team who is the dynasty of its time" is laughable given that that was a 10-6 Pats team that was the 4th seed in the playoffs and was easily the worst Pats team of the last five years.The Billick comparison is absolutely fair because you can't cherry pick certain units on your team for credit or blame when you're head coach. In fact, if anything it's unfair to Billick who never had control over personnel the way that Shanny always has.

 

[JohnnyU]

You're new to this game aren't you? Remember the 90's, huh? Watch football then?

The term "Genius" has a statute of limitations, doesn't it?

 

[KoolKat]

Here comes the quinine.

I give Lovie Smith credit for reaching the Super Bowl, but not so much that I think that his trip there makes him a great coach. I think he's a very strong defensive coach; he's a mixed bag as a head coach at best. Said another way, what season would you point to as being most reflective of Smith's tenure in Chicago? For me, I'd be hard pressed to choose between 2005 and 2007; the 2006 trip to the Super Bowl was a clear exception . . . so far.

Your other arguments are sophistry at best. Just because Shanahan hasn't had playoff success in the last decade, doesn't mean he won't do it again? Philsophically I agree, but so what? A decade in the NFL is an eternity, especially for coaches. How long are we supposed to wait for this new playoff success? As long as we're being philosophical, can't we make the very same argument five, 10, 25 years from now?

If Shanahan's career had begun in 1999, how long do you suppose he would have remained as the Broncos' head coach? I'd suggest that his last decade is most closely matched by Schottenheimer's performance with the Chargers, and we all saw that he lasted six years with that team before the contrast between regular season success and postseason failure became too much for the franchise. And of course Shotty never had control over personnel in San Diego the way that Shanny does in Denver, making Shanny's recent mediocrity all the more comprehensive. The fact is that, like Brian Billick (another overrated head coach), his most recent years have been looked at in the rosy light of ever-more-ancient playoff success and championships rather than for what they are.

Again, I don't at all think Shanahan sucks - I've said he's a likely Hall of Fame inductee as a multiple Super Bowl winning coach. I do think that, however, people tend to place too much weight upon his performance in the 1990's, and too little in the 2000's.

My question was not whether you think Lovie Smith is a great coach. My question is whether you regard Smith as a better, more capable coach before or after he went to the Super Bowl. This is obviously a loaded question for which there is only one reasonable answer. Again, you say Shanahan has not had playoff success in a decade which is quite simply incorrect. Beating a team who is the dynasty of its time, and making it too the AFC Championship is playoff success, and we need only look back less than 2 1/2 years to find that success. My argument is that since we have seen Shanahan be successful within the last 26 months, there is good reason to think he will be successful again. I am not saying that he will be successful again based on his late-90s success.

Had Shanahan's career begun in 1999, he would have certainly been fired by now. However, this argument does not hold water, because as I have said before and will say again. You cannot dismiss the successes Shanahan had with Elway strictly because he had Elway. Refer to my other posts for the reasoning behind that.

The Billick comparison is unfair, because Billick was an offensive-minded coach who always had a terrible O which was compensated by a stellar D. Shanahan is an Offesive-minded coach who has always had a productive, successful offense, that is let down by the defense. I agree that Shanny has made some questionable GM moves, but all that implies is that he is not the best GM, not that his coaching ability is any worse. And I don't think anyone is claiming he is the best or even an elite GM so he cannot be overrated in that sense.

Summary: I'm so hopelessly living in the past that I can't possibly be objective about the last decade. If "playoff success" to you means an 83/1 regular season/playoff win ratio over nine years, then I'm glad you're easily satisfied. Repeatedly pimping that lone playoff win as ". . . beating a team who is the dynasty of its time" is laughable given that that was a 10-6 Pats team that was the 4th seed in the playoffs and was easily the worst Pats team of the last five years.

The Billick comparison is absolutely fair because you can't cherry pick certain units on your team for credit or blame when you're head coach. In fact, if anything it's unfair to Billick who never had control over personnel the way that Shanny always has.

I am being subjective about the last decade. You said Shanahan has shown NO ability to replicate his successes. I gave the example of being in the AFC Champioship just a few seasons ago, proving that clearly you are mistaken in that assessment. He has shown an ability to replicate his success even within the last 3 seasons. You obviously do not have a full grasp of the terms success, no, or decade, if you are going to make that claim. To say Shanahan has shown NO reason to believe he can replicate his success or that he has had no success is ignorant. Clearly he has had at the very least a slight amount of success. Even if that success is just getting a bye, and winning a playoff game.The Billick reference is not a good one, because certain coaches have certain specialties. Billick's was supposed to be Offense as is Shanahans. The difference is that Shanny always has a good offense while Billick never had one. Shanahan is not the best defensive coach, but he has been successful in his specialty. Whereas, Billick is not the best defesive coach, and has not been successful in his area of expertise. All that proves is talent is the dominate force on any football team.

Are the Pats not the dynasty of their time? It is not pimping when you are stating fact. That Pats team may have not been the best Pats team, but they are still part of the Pats dynastic run. As a stated before, although it is just one win (and bye secured) it does not make the example irrelevant (as I demonstrated with my 9/11 reference) especially when you say so absolutely that "Shanahan has shown no reason to believe he can replicate his successes." This is not living in the past my friend, this is assesing recent events and concluding that Shanahan can replicate his success.

 

[Liquid Tension]

You cannot dismiss what Shanahan did with Elway just because he had Elway. The reason you cannot do that is because Shanahan did more with an OLD Elway than any other coach could do with Elway in his prime. John Elway's career without Mike Shanahan was far less successful than with Shanahan. All that proves is that if Shanahan has the talent, he can execute and win Super Bowls. Hopefully Cutler is that future talent.There are an elite few coaches that have proven that they are capable of coaching talent to Super Bowl victories. Shanahan and Belicheat are the only active ones that have done it multiple times. Again, your argument that this somehow does not count because he had Elway does not hold water. Maybe it would have if Elway had won without Shanahan, but he had not. Are you suggesting that we replace a coach of this elite caliber and reputation in favor of a wash-through or a no name? You cannot hold against Shanahan that he utilized Elway the best he could, resulting in mulitple titles. In fact, you should be forced to recognize, that given the talent, Shanahan can win a Super Bowl. Something that a small fraction of the league's coaches have proven. I suppose you think Cowher should have been fired years before his title, Jeff Fischer should have been gone ages ago, and Tony Dungy should have never got another shot with the Colts, and Belichick should not have got another shot after the Brown's debacle. The fact is there are various reasons why the Broncos have not won a Super Bowl since Elway, and coaching is one of the minor ones.

My take is that it is very possible that people have caught up with you. It is possible that Shanny is not a genius, it is also possible that he is a decent coach. I am not sure if he is the GM as well, but I thought so and if that is the case he deserves blame.A guy like Jeff Fisher is a great coach who has had poor teams thanks to poor GM work. People get on the coaches a lot, but Coughlin is a great example of a guy who I said impressed me more than any coach I had ever heard in analyzing games (I am on record defending him in these forums over the last 2 years) and knowing exactly what he was thinking during a certain portion of the game. he might not have been warm and fuzzy, but he knows the game.Belichick is obviously great and a few other guys are solid, but Shanny is probably at least an average head coach. I really can't say I see all his decisions, but that is my impression.

How can you possibly say he is an average coach when he is one of two active coaches who have won multiple Super Bowls? I can understand criticizing him as a GM, which he unofficially is. However, his coaching is of the elite level.

Barry Switzer won a SB

 

[Liquid Tension]

Shanahan, as HK listed, has done some very impressive things. The problem for him is that they all date back 5-10 years,

Shanahan had the Broncos in the AFC title game two seasons ago.

and he's shown no ability to replicate what he did with Elway.

No ability? Getting to the AFC title game with Jake Plummer at QB didn't impress you at all? Beating the two-time defending champion Patriots at home didn't impress you?

Since Elway retired, he traded away arguably the best offensive player his team has had - Portis - after only two seasons in which Portis was an absolute world-beater in his system.

The Portis trade was a good one, as Baily has been more valuable to the Broncos defense than Portis was to the Broncos offense. Really, that trade was win/win, as both teams benefited.

His post-Elway teams are also 1-4 in the playoffs, and have only had one division championship.

Those numbers are definitely disappointing, but he hasn't had an above average QB post-Elway until now. With Cutler entering his 3rd year, I think it goes without saying that Shanny's Broncos need to make some serious noise in the next few seasons, or else his greatness will deservingly be called into question. And to make a comparison, Jeff Fisher is still talked about in glowing terms, despite a lack of real success over the last five years, so why shouldn't Shanahan, who was won two more Super Bowls than Fisher, get the same courtesy?

The Bears were in the Super Bowl a year ago, but that doesn't mean I've been at all impressed with how they've been run over the last decade either. I'm talking about a pattern here, so a single example of some playoff success is an inadequate retort, and frankly invites the question, "Is that all you have to point to?"Likewise, Jeff Fisher is no comparison. Shanahan works for an organization that spends to the cap every year. Frankly, they've somehow escaped criticism that the Redskins have received for signing veterans for too much money. Not so the Titans, which operate as a "small market" cash poor team that emphasizes the draft more than FA. In other words, Fisher has less to work with. I'd also submit to you that the AFC South has overall been a tougher division in the last decade than has the AFC West, even with the inclusion of the expansion Texans.

Redman (both of them). The argument so and so got to win a SB or to a championship game is not the be all end all. Shanahan has been a solid coach for some time, but you might as well say Lovie Smith has been a far greater coach than Shanahan over the past 4 years because he coached his team to the SB with a QB a heck of a lot worse that Jake Plummer. Of course that is nit true.

 

[KoolKat]

You cannot dismiss what Shanahan did with Elway just because he had Elway. The reason you cannot do that is because Shanahan did more with an OLD Elway than any other coach could do with Elway in his prime. John Elway's career without Mike Shanahan was far less successful than with Shanahan. All that proves is that if Shanahan has the talent, he can execute and win Super Bowls. Hopefully Cutler is that future talent.There are an elite few coaches that have proven that they are capable of coaching talent to Super Bowl victories. Shanahan and Belicheat are the only active ones that have done it multiple times. Again, your argument that this somehow does not count because he had Elway does not hold water. Maybe it would have if Elway had won without Shanahan, but he had not. Are you suggesting that we replace a coach of this elite caliber and reputation in favor of a wash-through or a no name? You cannot hold against Shanahan that he utilized Elway the best he could, resulting in mulitple titles. In fact, you should be forced to recognize, that given the talent, Shanahan can win a Super Bowl. Something that a small fraction of the league's coaches have proven. I suppose you think Cowher should have been fired years before his title, Jeff Fischer should have been gone ages ago, and Tony Dungy should have never got another shot with the Colts, and Belichick should not have got another shot after the Brown's debacle. The fact is there are various reasons why the Broncos have not won a Super Bowl since Elway, and coaching is one of the minor ones.

My take is that it is very possible that people have caught up with you. It is possible that Shanny is not a genius, it is also possible that he is a decent coach. I am not sure if he is the GM as well, but I thought so and if that is the case he deserves blame.A guy like Jeff Fisher is a great coach who has had poor teams thanks to poor GM work. People get on the coaches a lot, but Coughlin is a great example of a guy who I said impressed me more than any coach I had ever heard in analyzing games (I am on record defending him in these forums over the last 2 years) and knowing exactly what he was thinking during a certain portion of the game. he might not have been warm and fuzzy, but he knows the game.Belichick is obviously great and a few other guys are solid, but Shanny is probably at least an average head coach. I really can't say I see all his decisions, but that is my impression.

How can you possibly say he is an average coach when he is one of two active coaches who have won multiple Super Bowls? I can understand criticizing him as a GM, which he unofficially is. However, his coaching is of the elite level.

Barry Switzer won a SB

Did he win multiple titles? Did he assemble the talent that won him the Super Bowl? Did he bring any innovations to the game? Name me one coach that has done all of those things, and is considered an average coach. Barry Switzer did none of those things.

 

[KoolKat]

Shanahan, as HK listed, has done some very impressive things. The problem for him is that they all date back 5-10 years,

Shanahan had the Broncos in the AFC title game two seasons ago.

and he's shown no ability to replicate what he did with Elway.

No ability? Getting to the AFC title game with Jake Plummer at QB didn't impress you at all? Beating the two-time defending champion Patriots at home didn't impress you?

Since Elway retired, he traded away arguably the best offensive player his team has had - Portis - after only two seasons in which Portis was an absolute world-beater in his system.

The Portis trade was a good one, as Baily has been more valuable to the Broncos defense than Portis was to the Broncos offense. Really, that trade was win/win, as both teams benefited.

His post-Elway teams are also 1-4 in the playoffs, and have only had one division championship.

Those numbers are definitely disappointing, but he hasn't had an above average QB post-Elway until now. With Cutler entering his 3rd year, I think it goes without saying that Shanny's Broncos need to make some serious noise in the next few seasons, or else his greatness will deservingly be called into question. And to make a comparison, Jeff Fisher is still talked about in glowing terms, despite a lack of real success over the last five years, so why shouldn't Shanahan, who was won two more Super Bowls than Fisher, get the same courtesy?

The Bears were in the Super Bowl a year ago, but that doesn't mean I've been at all impressed with how they've been run over the last decade either. I'm talking about a pattern here, so a single example of some playoff success is an inadequate retort, and frankly invites the question, "Is that all you have to point to?"Likewise, Jeff Fisher is no comparison. Shanahan works for an organization that spends to the cap every year. Frankly, they've somehow escaped criticism that the Redskins have received for signing veterans for too much money. Not so the Titans, which operate as a "small market" cash poor team that emphasizes the draft more than FA. In other words, Fisher has less to work with. I'd also submit to you that the AFC South has overall been a tougher division in the last decade than has the AFC West, even with the inclusion of the expansion Texans.

Redman (both of them). The argument so and so got to win a SB or to a championship game is not the be all end all. Shanahan has been a solid coach for some time, but you might as well say Lovie Smith has been a far greater coach than Shanahan over the past 4 years because he coached his team to the SB with a QB a heck of a lot worse that Jake Plummer. Of course that is nit true.

It is when the argument being set forthe by Redman is:Shanahan has shown NO reason to believe he can replicate his successes in the last decade.

 

[JohnnyU]

Yep.

Would you have said that if he didn't get fired?

 

[Mr Capicollo]

Yep.

Would you have said that if he didn't get fired?

He deleted his post.