Breaking down Shanahan's last 3 drafts in Denver....we are in good hands

[techboy]

Mike had three great drafts and didn't make the playoffs. So...why are we in good hands? If drafting wasn't his problem, there had to be SOME explanation.

He was in the AFC, with the Chargers in division and the Jets, Colts, Patriots, Ravens, Steelers, and others out of division.

Put the Broncos in the NFC over the same time span and I bet they would have made the playoffs.

It's kind of a sad state of affairs, but then, the Redskins do still play in the NFC, though not the NFC West, perhaps sadly.

[skinsfan1993]

Edit: Dennis Morris was traded to the Rams. What did we get in return? Was it a player we ended up releasing? How about Tryon? I believe his is a draft pick.....

We got Hall Davis, who was cut the next day. The Rams also cut Dennis Morris, so basically, we both just released the players. No compensation.

[Gator Bait]

The year before these three drafts you cite, the Broncos were 13-3, so, "...you can't fault Shanny for not winning right away with a rebuilt team," doesn't add up.

It actually does add up. If you would have dug deeper, you would have realized that this was an old team that went 13-3. That 2005 year that you just sited was lead by Jake Plummer (Starting QB; who was at the end of his career and retired a year later), Rod Smith (Leading receiver; see Jake Plummer), and Mike Anderson (Leading rusher; left for Baltimore the following year) Those drafts I sited were part of his rebuilding process....he went 23-25 in those "rebuilding years" which I think is pretty good. If Denver hadn't fired him, he would have probably made the playoffs the following year. In those drafts, he replaced Plummer with Cutler (who goes on to make a pro bowl, gets traded for two first round picks, and takes the Bears to the NFC championship game); replaces Smith with Marshall (who has three 100 catch seasons); and also drafted a franchise All pro Tackle, Ryan Clady. Mike also rebuilt his aging offensive line in those drafts adding three other starters (besides Clady) to Denver's oline

His drafts over his ten-year span with full control, were fair. His teams averaged 9-7, but he had a poor playoff record while in full control. My own theory is that Mike isn't a Big Picture Guy. His offense puts up numbers, but it doesn't help the defense. His defensive philosophy changes every other year.

His drafts prior to these three years were up and down...he had some busts, but he also had some really great picks in the mid-later rounds...sometimes it just clicks...like anything else in life, being a head coach/personnel guy is a growing process....apparently Shanny is a late bloomer when it comes to drafting....because as I've proved in my original post, he did a great job in his last 3 drafts in Denver (rebuilding that team) He is facing another rebuild here and I'm confident he will get the job done.

As far as his playoff record, they guy won two Superbowls; I don't think anyone can question his ability to win in the post season.

---------- Post added March-8th-2011 at 04:51 PM ----------

Gator, I'm high on Shanahan, but I have to question your post. How can you say that he drafted well (by taking guys like Marshall and Cutler) and then say that McDaniel's decision to trade those guys was justified because they are cancer (and you're not high on Cutler as a QB)? I don't get it. They can't be both great picks AND cancerous/not great players.

good point. Marshall and Cutler were both very talented, but McDaniels butted heads with Cutler (didn't help that he shopped the guy)....but they just needed to part ways. Went through the same issue with Marshall...I remember seeing video of him batting down passes and refusing to practice. I think McDaniels is a good coach, he just has some growing to do (kind of like Belichek after his stint with the Browns)

I don't like Cutler and Marshall personally....I think they are both *******s that care more about themselves rather than the team.....Shanny got them to play for them and didn't have any issues.

As far as not being high on Cutler.....I think the guy has fundamental problems, like his drop backs and he doesn't protect the football...too many turnovers...sometimes 4 to the same guy..haha

---------- Post added March-8th-2011 at 04:57 PM ----------

Can't argue with that. It's why I wasn't liking bringing Shanahan here in the first place. He's consistently had good offenses and has always made constant changes on the defense, even when it was already pretty good, he'd turn around and make it worse again. I think the goal here now isn't to have a top 10 defense, it's to have a defense that gets the ball back to the offense a few times a game. One of the reasons I don't see Carlos Rogers being offered a contract. If it doesn't work will be go back to the 4-3 in 2014? Who knows.

Basically, I think Shanahan would make a great offensive coordinator, kinda like Norv Turner but maybe better as a HC but not really a great one. He actually did win a couple SB's with his great team, unlike Norv in SD.

actually I did make a very good argument about that...see above! Maybe Carlos Rogers isn't being offered a contract because he is asking for way too much money and isn't even an elite corner (I really couldn't tell you because I'm not at the negotiating table). The skins (Bruce Allen) is setting a new precedent......we are not going to be everyone's pay day anymore. We are going to bring guys in at reasonable contracts and build a new reputation in Washington. Bruce has done a great job with contracts the past year and half he has been with the team.

I don't think you can call a guy who won 2 Super Bowls "not a great HC" He already has proven he is a great head coach. And I don't want to hear the "he walked into a great team" argument either...how come Dan Reeves couldn't win a Super Bowl with that Denver team?

It actually took Mike Shanahan coming in coaching and drafting Terrell Davis (a big reason they won the super bowl) to get it done.

[Oldfan]

...I don't think you can call a guy who won 2 Super Bowls "not a great HC" He already has proven he is a great head coach. And I don't want to hear the "he walked into a great team" argument either...how come Dan Reeves couldn't win a Super Bowl with that Denver team?...

I'm arguing apples and you're countering with oranges. Mike added offensive strategy to the team he inherited that won two superbowls. If I had said that he wasn't a good offensive coordinator, your point would be relevant. But that wasn't my point.

My argument was about Shanny's resume with full control of the team since that's what he has here. Here, read it again and notice the underline I added.

His drafts over his ten-year span with full control, were fair. His teams averaged 9-7, but he had a poor playoff record while in full control. My own theory is that Mike isn't a Big Picture Guy. His offense puts up numbers, but it doesn't help the defense. His defensive philosophy changes every other year.

[Skinsinparadise]

Mike had three great drafts and didn't make the playoffs. So...why are we in good hands? If drafting wasn't his problem, there had to be SOME explanation.

I don't think drafting was his problem, or offense, he has had consistently top 10 offenses, usually top 5. It's as you pointed out defense. If am reading you right based on prior posts, you don't expect him to learn from his mistakes on defense. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt and i will wait and see.

Curious what you think of 2 things. Do you see Shanny as sort of a Norv Turner type? Can run his side of the ball but doesn't do the rest well? Who would you prefer Norv or Shanny? Other question is what do you think of Andy Reid? Like Shanny he tends to horde draft picks, like Shanny he's hit and miss with the actual picks but has done better later in his career with the draft. Like Shanny he makes many appearances in the playoffs. Only difference is he hasn't won the Superbowl but he does usually one round better than Shanny in the playoffs but by and large isn't that hot in the playoffs.

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

His trades are a disaster - he better draft well.

That's a blanket statement.

I count 4 trades.

1st) McNabb, which was terrible

2nd) Getting Adam Carriker for nothing, which was great

3rd) Getting Brown, which I think will be a good move when we look back on it, I think we resign him and he continues his improved play

4th) Trading Tryon for a draft pick instead of cutting him

I can't think of any others right now, but that's good ones, 1 decent but should turn out to be average, and 1 poor one. I wouldn't call his trades a disaster based off of McNabb.

[Oldfan]

I don't think drafting was his problem, or offense, he has had consistently top 10 offenses, usually top 5. It's as you pointed out defense.

As I said earlier..." My own theory is that Mike isn't a Big Picture Guy. His offense puts up numbers, but it doesn't help the defense. His defensive philosophy changes every other year."

I see Mike and Norv as alike in one respect: they are both specialists (offense) and neither sees the Big Picture well. If the team's objective is to have a high flying offense, you have the right guys. But, if the objective is to build a perennial winner, you don't want to give either full control of your football team. When you ask me to choose one, you're asking me to choose the lesser of evils.

Do I think Mike can change? No. Specialists are perfectionists. They don't change their personalities at 57. I don't hold grudges, though. I'm hoping he leaves me with egg on my face this coming season by actually building for the future.

Other question is what do you think of Andy Reid?

Underrated as a coach, but I don't know enough about his situation behind the scenes to estimate how much power he holds in the organization. Consequently, I don't know how much credit or blame is his for the team's past performances.

[Highway66]

Great post!!! Many Thank yous

[Skinsinparadise]

Do I think Mike can change? No. Specialists are perfectionists. They don't change their personalities at 57. I don't hold grudges, though. I'm hoping he leaves me with egg on my face this coming season by actually building for the future.

I can go either way on it but tend to give coaches the benefit of the doubt initially. Shanny flat out said when he didn't coach football that one year he was out, he studied how to improve, looked at other teams including your beloved Bill Belichick -- so I'll see if it plays out.

Underrated as a coach, but I don't know enough about his situation behind the scenes to estimate how much power he holds in the organization. Consequently, I don't know how much credit or blame is his for the team's past performances.

Unlike Shanny he's got no Superbowls, both him and Shanny get to the playoffs a lot but both guys get knocked out of the playoffs routinely so was wondering if you'd give Reid a hard time for it too. Some Eagles fans I know seem frustrated by their lack of success in the playoffs. Granted the eagles have won some playoff games, but still generally someone knocks them out. And Reid does run a big play offense as opposed to ball control.

[zoony]

maurice clarett on line 2.

j/k, good thread. And anything is better than cerrato, oh he of devin thomas / malcolm kelly fame

[Oldfan]

...And Reid does run a big play offense as opposed to ball control.

How was he supposed to do that with McNabb as his QB? Then Vick comes in for Kolb and lights it up. How are you supposed to play the conventional WCO with QBs like that?

[Skinsinparadise]

How was he supposed to do that with McNabb as his QB? Then Vick comes in for Kolb and lights it up. How are you supposed to play the conventional WCO with QBs like that?

He drafted McNabb. What about being knocked out of the playoffs all the time? He does get knocked a lot for in game decisions including time management. And getting past the WCO stuff, the guy throws like crazy -- clock control doesn't seem his thing.

[redskins55]

Nice break down...

I will say that its pretty hard to determine who Shanahan will take based off his previous drafts.

For instance in 2006 he went Cutler at #11 but Haloti Ngata went #12 to the Ravens. So he might be kicking himself for that pick. I mean Cutler and Marshall were good but they had no defense. Also, in 2006 the first WR off the board was Sanantonio Holmes at #25 to the Steelers. That's nothing compared to this draft where there are 2 potential all pro WR in the top 10 of this year's draft.

In 2007 he tried to fill the void on defense and seemingly missed with the D-End picks. By him reaching for defense he passed on Dwayne Bowe in the first a perfect compliment to Brandon Marshall.

In 2008 he went Eddie Royal in the 2nd to try and compliment Brandon Marshall but passed on DeSean Jackson.

So if I'm Shanahan even though my picks wernt bad, I'm evaluating them to see if they could've been better. And depending on what draft strategy you go into the draft with, I think you can make the case that Shanahan might go a different route based off his previous drafts.

[Rpredskins]

Nice break down...

I will say that its pretty hard to determine who Shanahan will take based off his previous drafts.

For instance in 2006 he went Cutler at #11 but Haloti Ngata went #12 to the Ravens. So he might be kicking himself for that pick. I mean Cutler and Marshall were good but they had no defense. Also, in 2006 the first WR off the board was Sanantonio Holmes at #25 to the Steelers. That's nothing compared to this draft where there are 2 potential all pro WR in the top 10 of this year's draft.

In 2007 he tried to fill the void on defense and seemingly missed with the D-End picks. By him reaching for defense he passed on Dwayne Bowe in the first a perfect compliment to Brandon Marshall.

In 2008 he went Eddie Royal in the 2nd to try and compliment Brandon Marshall but passed on DeSean Jackson.

So if I'm Shanahan even though my picks wernt bad, I'm evaluating them to see if they could've been better. And depending on what draft strategy you go into the draft with, I think you can make the case that Shanahan might go a different route based off his previous drafts.

I dont think its fair to judge his drafting based on players picked before his picks who happened to excel. Using that logic, you could call any of the 32 GMs total fools because they took a slightly worse player than they could have (in 20/20 hindsight).

The point is that Shanahan found talent, and more importantly he found it in later rounds- Brandon Marshal in round 4, peyton hillis round 7- good god those are jackpot picks.

Look at all the starters he picked. Based on those drafts I would say Shanahan is at worst a reliable identifier of talent and possibly even a brilliant scout/drafter.

[redskins55]

I dont think its fair to judge his drafting based on players picked before his picks who happened to excel. Using that logic, you could call any of the 32 GMs total fools because they took a slightly worse player than they could have (in 20/20 hindsight).

The point is that Shanahan found talent, and more importantly he found it in later rounds- Brandon Marshal in round 4, peyton hillis round 7- good god those are jackpot picks.

Look at all the starters he picked. Based on those drafts I would say Shanahan is at worst a reliable identifier of talent and possibly even a brilliant scout/drafter.

I totally agree." Shanahan is at worst a reliable identifier of talent and possibly even a brilliant scout/drafter". My point was to counter some of the other posters who suggested that we can tell who he will draft based off his previous picks. When I know coaches are always evaluating their strategy to see how they can get better. Especially when you haven't been to the playoffs in 6 years, and haven't been to a Super Bowl in 13 years. for instance just because he picked Brandon Marshall in the 3rd round on the 2006 draft doesn't mean that he would pass on A.J Green or Julio Jones. Or just because he tends to pick up undrafted RBs doesn't mean he would've passed on Adrian Peterson.

[Oldfan]

He drafted McNabb. What about being knocked out of the playoffs all the time? He does get knocked a lot for in game decisions including time management. And getting past the WCO stuff, the guy throws like crazy -- clock control doesn't seem his thing.

Reid and McNabb both arrived in 1999. I don't know how much influence Andy had in the selection. We can be sure he didn't have full control of the team, so he doesn't automatically get the credit or blame for the Eagles' fortunes, in my book.

After Zorn's Skins beat him for the second time in 2008, Reid said "They played the field position game better than we did." He certainly sounded like a man who valued the ball control, field position game.

With many fans, especially rival Redskins fans, Reid had a reputation as a dumb coach who passed too much. I saw him as a good coach who adapted well to his talent. McNabb's deep game is his strength, so a big play offense is the result. With elusive RBs, like Westbrook, the screen pass is a mightier weapon than running him up the gut like most coaches would do. If that results in more passes on the stats, who cares?

Unlike Mike Shanahan, Andy Reid didn't have full control of his football team. So, we can't assume that the results the Eagles got were all his doing.

If I owned an NFL team, I would not trust any coach with full control. Men like Bill Walsh are too rare in the profession.

[Skinsinparadise]

Reid and McNabb both arrived in 1999. I don't know how much influence Andy had in the selection. We can be sure he didn't have full control of the team, so he doesn't automatically get the credit or blame for the Eagles' fortunes, in my book.

After Zorn's Skins beat him for the second time in 2008, Reid said "They played the field position game better than we did." He certainly sounded like a man who valued the ball control, field position game.

With many fans, especially rival Redskins fans, Reid had a reputation as a dumb coach who passed too much. I saw him as a good coach who adapted well to his talent. McNabb's deep game is his strength, so a big play offense is the result. With elusive RBs, like Westbrook, the screen pass is a mightier weapon than running him up the gut like most coaches would do. If that results in more passes on the stats, who cares?

Unlike Mike Shanahan, Andy Reid didn't have full control of his football team. So, we can't assume that the results the Eagles got were all his doing.

If I owned an NFL team, I would not trust any coach with full control. Men like Bill Walsh are too rare in the profession.

From what I've read Reid is majorly involved with personnel but I don't know for sure of course. I don't see him as a dumb coach but he strikes me as having some of the main characteristics -- results wise which you use to minimize Shanny's tenure in Denver.

Read more: http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/eagles/20110130_End_in_sight_for_Reid_s_Eagles_tenure_.html#ixzz1G6YXn3a3

Reid has final say on all football matters, the Eagles' front office has said repeatedly. But that does not mean owner Jeffrey Lurie, team president Joe Banner, and general manager Howie Roseman don't influence his decisions.

[SWFLSkins]

But I thought Shanny suck'd at drafting? Reading too much ES I guess.

[Voice_of_Reason]

maurice clarett on line 2.

j/k, good thread. And anything is better than cerrato, oh he of devin thomas / malcolm kelly fame

Damn, you know, I keep forgetting that MK is actually STILL on the roster. Don't know how. But maybe the answer to the WR problem is already on the team!!!! </sarcasm>

[Oldfan]

From what I've read Reid is majorly involved with personnel but I don't know for sure of course. I don't see him as a dumb coach but he strikes me as having some of the main characteristics -- results wise which you use to minimize Shanny's tenure in Denver.

What you are trying to do is show that, by comparison, I have unfairly criticized Shanahan for faults which are shared by Andy Reid who I haven't criticized. That's a weak approach to argue since I have said that I don't know how much control Reed has. I can't assign blame or credit for the Eagles' success or failure. Thus, you can't imply that I've given Reed a pass on issues where I've faulted Shanahan.

You can't infer that my "no comment" = a pass for Reid.

No comment = no comment.

---------- Post added March-9th-2011 at 10:12 AM ----------

This post was for others, not for you SIP. I know you have a good handle on the truth on the Broncos drafts in the Shanny years.

Here's a look at Shanahan's drafts for the Broncos 2004-8 compared to other teams based on objective standards, not on subjective opinions of cherry-picked years.

http://www.milehighreport.com/2010/3/24/1386838/the-nfl-draft-a-little-less

[Zhouse]

Here's a look at Shanahan's drafts for the Broncos 2004-8 compared to other teams based on objective standards, not on subjective opinions of cherry-picked years.

http://www.milehighreport.com/2010/3/24/1386838/the-nfl-draft-a-little-less

To the OP's credit, he did pick 3 consecutive years...the tail end of his Denver tenure. As he stated maybe Shanahan was just starting to get a feel for his system and who fits in it.

Also, the argument in the article you posted (did Shanahan win in spite of his draft picks?) is hard to prove either way. It's the chicken and the egg argument.

Ultimately, I think we're in good hands because the man wins games.

[Gator Bait]

Here's a look at Shanahan's drafts for the Broncos 2004-8 compared to other teams based on objective standards, not on subjective opinions of cherry-picked years.

http://www.milehighreport.com/2010/3/24/1386838/the-nfl-draft-a-little-less

cherry-picked huh...I'm assuming that is a dig towards the original post. I hardly think the last 3 years of drafting he had in his last head coaching gig can be considered "cherry-picked" years. You seem to make stuff up as you go along. Just like when you tried to come back from my "rebuilding years" argument and you point out that they were 13-3 the prior year and shouldn't have had three mediocre years.....I point out that the team you spoke of was old and those players were gone from the team w/ in a year and you go on to argue about something completely different. Just admit when you are wrong!

Subjective opinions???? Really...how can the facts I've given be subjective opinion.....if you are an All Pro in the NFL...you are flat out a success same goes for starters. And to have 19/20 players drafted those three years still in the league...there is no opinion involved with that...he just flat out nailed those drafts.

[Oldfan]

cherry-picked huh...I'm assuming that is a dig towards the original post.

Yes it was.

I hardly think the last 3 years of drafting he had in his last head coaching gig can be considered "cherry-picked" years.

We disagree on that. Suppose I wrote that "Our team is in the hands of a guy who can't make the playoffs," and I cherry-picked the last three years to support my argument. How would that sit with you?

You seem to make stuff up as you go along. Just like when you tried to come back from my "rebuilding years" argument and you point out that they were 13-3 the prior year and shouldn't have had three mediocre years.....I point out that the team you spoke of was old and those players were gone from the team w/ in a year and you go on to argue about something completely different. Just admit when you are wrong!

I dropped the argument on "rebuilding years" issue because it wasn't all that important. You proved nothing by cherry-picking a few old players off that 13-3 team. You could do that every year off every team. Mike Shanahan has never "rebuilt" a team in his career. It's against his religion. He "retools" each and every year.

Subjective opinions???? Really...how can the facts I've given be subjective opinion.....if you are an All Pro in the NFL...you are flat out a success same goes for starters. And to have 19/20 players drafted those three years still in the league...there is no opinion involved with that...he just flat out nailed those drafts.

Your method was subjective because you chose how to report your facts. For example, you reported that Jarvis Moss was still in the league as a backup DE for the Raiders. What you didn't report was that Moss was a very expensive bust for Mike who traded up to get him. If memory serves, Moss cost him three picks. That additional information changes a positive into a negative.

In contrast, the study I linked used a combination of objective standards which allowed no subjective judgments on the part of the researchers.

I agree that those were good drafts. Not as good as you portrayed them, but good. A Bronco fan on this board, "Shananigans," credits "the Goodmans" for those good drafts. I had never heard of them before.

[wilbur58z]

Mike Lombardi was a longtime AFC West personnel guy and also a consultant for Denver a short while.

He said on NFL Network that Shanahan began to ignore his scouts toward the end of his tenure in Denver and was making the picks himself.

He seemed to suggest this was bad for the Broncos, but when you look at those final drafts, there's a clear difference in quality in comparison to what had been going on prior.

[Gator Bait]

Yes it was.

We disagree on that. Suppose I wrote that "Our team is in the hands of a guy who can't make the playoffs," and I cherry-picked the last three years to support my argument. How would that sit with you?

we can disagree that is fine...everyone has their right to their own opinion. But I do have other people in this thread that have agreed with me and not you. I don't think you understand the term "cherry-picked" because the way you are using it makes no sense; Especially given the context of my defense of shanny.

I dropped the argument on "rebuilding years" issue because it wasn't all that important.You proved nothing by cherry-picking a few old players off that 13-3 team. You could do that every year off every team. Mike Shanahan has never "rebuilt" a team in his career. It's against his religion. He "retools" each and every year.

You dropped the argument because I proved you wrong...you just aren't big enough to admit it. There you go with your "cherry-picking" again. I picked out three players to save time...and they happened to be the best three players on that time. The starting QB, RB, and WR.....I don't think any team in the NFL could go back to the playoffs the following year if they lost starters at these three positions. They were old...the offensive line was old.

If you don't consider replacing your starting QB, #1 and #2 receivers, 3/5 of your offensive line, and starting RB all within three years rebuilding...I'd like to find out what you would consider a rebuild.

Your method was subjective because you chose how to report your facts. For example, you reported that Jarvis Moss was still in the league as a backup DE for the Raiders. What you didn't report was that Moss was a very expensive bust for Mike who traded up to get him. If memory serves, Moss cost him three picks. That additional information changes a positive into a negative.

I listed Moss as a back up DE for the Raiders because he is still in the league...and when 19/20 of your draft picks are still in the league; you are usually doing something right. You do, however, bring up a good point about Moss being a bust.....I didn't realized they actually traded up to get him either. So I'll give you that, but the combined three years of drafting in his final years at Denver still have to be viewed as a success.