Pilsner Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 Obvious troll. If he is a troll then I will just call him bunny rabbit. From the movie Harvey with Jimmy Stewart.
finknottle Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 Are you guys really this dense? How will the Buffalo Bills ever know if Brohm is good enough to even be a back up if he doesn't play? Probably the same way they know I'm not good enough to sign and start, even though they haven't seen me in an NFL game. They might be wrong of course, but it is their job to separate those worth trying from those who are a waste of time.
OCinBuffalo Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 (edited) As I said in the original "Shanahan goes to DC" thread almost a year ago: Never Underestimate the Dark Side of the Snyder. Who do you think demanded that McNabb be extended? Shanahan? Why? Why would a coach give away a motivational tool in the middle of a season? It wasn't Shanahan. I'd lay $1000 on Snyder. Snyder made his money from junk mail. In that business, you look for a new trend, and then immediately and fully commit your resources to it. Then, you find a new trend. Sound familiar? This is the exact business model of the Redskins. Snyder: "Such and so had a good last four games of the season? Sign him up for 5 years and $100 MM". "Extend McNabb!" Then:"What do you mean Adam Archuleta doesn't fit our defensive scheme?" "What do you mean Albert Haynesworth doesn't want to play the 3-4?". "What do you mean McNabb can't play, he trended well 3 weeks ago!" But....how then does sitting McNabb make any sense at all? Easy. Never Underestimate the Ego of the "Ultimate Leader". Shanahan has to establish his dominance over Snyder. Even it that wasn't the case, the "ultimate leader"'s ego would tell him it was anyway. These two men are the perfect combination of ego and stupidity. And, it is as I said it would be: hilarious. Edit: And, just in case you wanted to give Shanahan the benefit of the doubt, or, blame it on some over-zealous PR person, you can forget it. Mike Shanahan's guest speaking profile here. Again, he refers to himself as "the Ultimate Leader". :lol: :lol: :lol: Edited December 20, 2010 by OCinBuffalo
Mr. WEO Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 Disagree. IMO Elway carrried those Dan Reeves teams to the Super Bowl. How many great players were on those teams? Their best runners were people like Sammy Winder and Gaston Green. Their best receivers were guys like Steve Watson and Mark Jackson. Elway carried that team. Without him they were just another football team. As I already stated, Shanahan's record in 10 post-Elway seasons was 4 playoff appearances, and a 1-4 playoff record. Ten years without Elway, 1 playoff victory. No. I think you're wrong. Yes Elway carried the Broncos to those three SBs--he was a HOF QB in his prime. But he led them to unprecedented slaughter. His SB teams scored 40 points over 3 SBs. Fast forward years later. Shanahan realizes Elway cannot carry the team in that way. He brings in Davis and the Broncos become a running team. Adding Rod Smith helps Elway squeeze out a few more passing TDs to add to the total. Check out Elway's stats in his final year. It's interesting/convenient that you forward the theory that Shanahan's success was as a delegator (O-line coach too??), yet his reputation is the exact opposite. Go figure. Look at the guys Shanahan had after Elway and Davis left the game and tell who would have reached an AFCC game with them. Dan Reeves?
OCinBuffalo Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 Yes Elway carried the Broncos to those three SBs--he was a HOF QB in his prime. But he led them to unprecedented slaughter. His SB teams scored 40 points over 3 SBs. Fast forward years later. Shanahan realizes Elway cannot carry the team in that way. He brings in Davis and the Broncos become a running team. Adding Rod Smith helps Elway squeeze out a few more passing TDs to add to the total. Check out Elway's stats in his final year. It's interesting/convenient that you forward the theory that Shanahan's success was as a delegator (O-line coach too??), yet his reputation is the exact opposite. Go figure. Look at the guys Shanahan had after Elway and Davis left the game and tell who would have reached an AFCC game with them. Dan Reeves? Oh please. A running team? Yes, a running team with a HOF QB throwing to solid WRs and a HOF level Tight End that nobody could cover for 3 years. That kind of "running team". At best they were a "balanced attack". But, a "running team"? No.
Mr. WEO Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 Oh please. A running team? Yes, a running team with a HOF QB throwing to solid WRs and a HOF level Tight End that nobody could cover for 3 years. That kind of "running team". At best they were a "balanced attack". But, a "running team"? No. Yes, a running team--that's what they became. In '97 they were 4th in rushing and Davis, alone, had 1750 yards. In '98 they were 2nd in rushing, with Davis getting 2008 yards. They had 26 rushing TDs that year. Do you ever look anything up before you post? You guys forget that the Broncos won 4 games with Bubby Brister (4-0, infact) while Elway put up Fitzy numbers in his 13 starts that year.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted December 20, 2010 Author Posted December 20, 2010 It's interesting/convenient that you forward the theory that Shanahan's success was as a delegator (O-line coach too??), yet his reputation is the exact opposite. Go figure. Look at the guys Shanahan had after Elway and Davis left the game and tell who would have reached an AFCC game with them. Dan Reeves? WEO, "the guys Shanahan had after Elway" were hand-picked and brought in by Shanahan…which is why for months I've been saying that I didn't want Shanahan in Buffalo…because while he may be a good football coach, he's a horrible (de facto) General Manager. Once Neal Dahlen stepped aside in Denver, Shanahan was given more and more power, to the point that "GM" Ted Sundquist was forced out at the end of 2007 and Shanny was given the title for what he already had become…General Manager. I say he "may" be a good football coach. In the ten years after Elway left, the Broncos made the playoffs four times and had a 1-4 playoff record. As for your statement about Shanny's reputation, I've been saying all along that his reputation is misleading. He's overrated IMO. Winning an NFL Championship requires a total organizational effort and a little bit of luck. Guys like Shanny and Brian Billick would have you believe that it's all about the head coach.
thewildrabbit Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 Probably the same way they know I'm not good enough to sign and start, even though they haven't seen me in an NFL game. They might be wrong of course, but it is their job to separate those worth trying from those who are a waste of time. I know you are not good enough also.... although Brian Brohm is on the Buffalo Bills roster as the second string QB, meaning that if Fitz gets hurt he would enter the game and try and win it for the Bills Last off season Chan Gailey had open compitition at the QB position and Trent Edwards beat out Fitz and Brohm, the Bills cut Brown. So after 2 regular season game Gailey cuts Edwards, he showed everyone with that move that he has no ability to tell if a player is worthy until he actually plays in game conditions
Doc Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 (edited) Yes, a running team--that's what they became. In '97 they were 4th in rushing and Davis, alone, had 1750 yards. In '98 they were 2nd in rushing, with Davis getting 2008 yards. They had 26 rushing TDs that year. Do you ever look anything up before you post? You guys forget that the Broncos won 4 games with Bubby Brister (4-0, infact) while Elway put up Fitzy numbers in his 13 starts that year. The Broncos were 3rd overall in rushing in 2000, 4th in 2002, 2nd in 2003, 4th in 2004, and 2nd in 2005. If Shanahan could win with anyone at QB (a la Bubby Brister), why only 1 playoff win in a decade, and especially those 5 years? Edited December 20, 2010 by Doc
Mr. WEO Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 WEO, "the guys Shanahan had after Elway" were hand-picked and brought in by Shanahan…which is why for months I've been saying that I didn't want Shanahan in Buffalo…because while he may be a good football coach, he's a horrible (de facto) General Manager. Once Neal Dahlen stepped aside in Denver, Shanahan was given more and more power, to the point that "GM" Ted Sundquist was forced out at the end of 2007 and Shanny was given the title for what he already had become…General Manager. I say he "may" be a good football coach. In the ten years after Elway left, the Broncos made the playoffs four times and had a 1-4 playoff record. As for your statement about Shanny's reputation, I've been saying all along that his reputation is misleading. He's overrated IMO. Winning an NFL Championship requires a total organizational effort and a little bit of luck. Guys like Shanny and Brian Billick would have you believe that it's all about the head coach. If you now are going to change the argument to one that states Shanahan is not a good GM, I'm with you there, as are many in the general public. Interesting you say Bowlen is one of the best owners, yet he let Sundquist go in favor of Shanahan, then he let Shanahan go for some QB coach, then he let that clown go go for......? But as a coach, particularly with regards to the Elway/Bubby Brister SB season, I don't know what else to say about Shanahan. If you think it was because of Kubiack and an O-line coach...fine. If all of that makes you feel better about the hiring of Chan Gailey--I understand. I do.
Doc Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 If you now are going to change the argument to one that states Shanahan is not a good GM, I'm with you there, as are many in the general public. Interesting you say Bowlen is one of the best owners, yet he let Sundquist go in favor of Shanahan, then he let Shanahan go for some QB coach, then he let that clown go go for......? But as a coach, particularly with regards to the Elway/Bubby Brister SB season, I don't know what else to say about Shanahan. If you think it was because of Kubiack and an O-line coach...fine. If all of that makes you feel better about the hiring of Chan Gailey--I understand. I do. The results of the 2nd half of the season for both teams does a better job of that.
Ramius Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 When in doubt, you can always count on WEO to make a complete fool of himself.
Mr. WEO Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 The results of the 2nd half of the season for both teams does a better job of that. I understand your point doc. I don't have much of an argument with that. But if it's based on revising the history of the Broncos only SB wins it's not very convincing. Gailey may be the guy. Many here are straining to see anything good (and ignoring the not so good) to feel better about a pick that lacked some vigor, shall we say. This is understandable because we are ALL hoping this isn;t yet another compromise pick like Gregg, MM, DJ--where 2 or 3 years from now we will be witnessing yet another Bills HC deathwatch. I get that. Beat the pats or the Jets and that will show me for sure we are on the way. I will leave the Fitz wagon and will jump on the Gailey bandwagon.
JohnC Posted December 21, 2010 Posted December 21, 2010 (edited) Who do you think demanded that McNabb be extended? Shanahan? Why? Why would a coach give away a motivational tool in the middle of a season? It wasn't Shanahan. As stated a number of times the so-called extension to McNabb is not a real extension in the sense that there is a financial committment to him. If the Skins trade or release him they own him absolutely NOTHING. The salary figures associated with his contract ranging from $40M to 70M are bogus. Edited December 21, 2010 by JohnC
Doc Posted December 21, 2010 Posted December 21, 2010 I understand your point doc. I don't have much of an argument with that. But if it's based on revising the history of the Broncos only SB wins it's not very convincing. Gailey may be the guy. Many here are straining to see anything good (and ignoring the not so good) to feel better about a pick that lacked some vigor, shall we say. This is understandable because we are ALL hoping this isn;t yet another compromise pick like Gregg, MM, DJ--where 2 or 3 years from now we will be witnessing yet another Bills HC deathwatch. I get that. Beat the pats or the Jets and that will show me for sure we are on the way. I will leave the Fitz wagon and will jump on the Gailey bandwagon. The SB wins were a team effort. Remove Elway, Shanahan, or Davis and they likely don't win it all. But as I said, Elway took his team to the SB 3 times (3 times is no fluke) without Shanahan or Davis, while Shanahan couldn't even get his team back to the SB in 10 years without Elway or Davis. And while Davis had too short of a career to determine anything about him, RBs aren't the considered a reason teams win SBs. IOW, the one constant is Elway. Another thing to consider, as SJBF said, is that Shanahan might have been beholden to his assistant coaches like Kubiak and Gibbs. His son sure ain't cutting it. And we've already agreed that he's a horrible GM, and you know that he was going to demand to be the GM if he was the coach of the Bills. True Gailey wasn't a sexy pick. I wasn't too thrilled with it myself at the time. It's similar to those who don't think Fitz is the guy because he wasn't a 1st rounder and/or has been on several different teams. But there's no straining needed to see the good. The Bills are 4-2 in their last 6 games, and lost another 3 games to good (well, the Chefs have a good record) teams in OT, having a chance to win each of them. And in all but 2 games they've played hard and kept it close. And they've played the 4th hardest schedule in the NFL this year. You can jump on whatever bandwagon you want. I doubt Fitz would be playing as well as he has if Gailey weren't around. He didn't last year.
Chimp Posted December 21, 2010 Posted December 21, 2010 Are you aware that it was the owner and his organization who aggressively pursued him? So if you want to be critical of his pursuit then criticize the owner. I never wanted him in Buffalo because I thought he was not a good fit for this organization or owner. To declare MS a failure in his first year of a rebuilding situation is like declaring Chan Gailey, involved in his own rebuilding process, a failure because the Bills presently have three wins. Neither premature assessments would make sense, at least to me. Both organizations reeked with major systemic dysfunction. There is no quick fix for either organization. It is simply going to take time to right the ship for both teams. The main difference is that Shanny will probably get fired next year. He has a bad habit of thinking he is smarter than everyone else. It will get him canned in DC just as it did in Denver. He had a QB in Denver with a winning record whom he benched because he is smarter than everybody else. That worked out well for him. I'll be laughing as both Shanny and little Shanny are run out of DC. The SB wins were a team effort. Remove Elway, Shanahan, or Davis and they likely don't win it all. But as I said, Elway took his team to the SB 3 times (3 times is no fluke) without Shanahan or Davis, while Shanahan couldn't even get his team back to the SB in 10 years without Elway or Davis. And while Davis had too short of a career to determine anything about him, RBs aren't the considered a reason teams win SBs. IOW, the one constant is Elway. Regardless of your attempt to minimize the role of a great running back, Elway has 0 rings without TD. Considering the fast that TD could hardly walk but was utilized as a decoy that worked perfectly I would say that he made a big difference. I also believe that team wins without Shanahan. Head coaches are over rated. It is the players on the field that play the game.
Doc Posted December 21, 2010 Posted December 21, 2010 Regardless of your attempt to minimize the role of a great running back, Elway has 0 rings without TD. Considering the fast that TD could hardly walk but was utilized as a decoy that worked perfectly I would say that he made a big difference. I also believe that team wins without Shanahan. Head coaches are over rated. It is the players on the field that play the game. I said that Davis had too short of a career to say anything definitive about his contribution, but that without him, the Broncos likely don't win a SB. I can't say for sure. Teams have won SB's without great RB's just as they have without great QB's.
Ramius Posted December 21, 2010 Posted December 21, 2010 The main difference is that Shanny will probably get fired next year. He has a bad habit of thinking he is smarter than everyone else. It will get him canned in DC just as it did in Denver. He had a QB in Denver with a winning record whom he benched because he is smarter than everybody else. That worked out well for him. I'll be laughing as both Shanny and little Shanny are run out of DC. Regardless of your attempt to minimize the role of a great running back, Elway has 0 rings without TD. Considering the fast that TD could hardly walk but was utilized as a decoy that worked perfectly I would say that he made a big difference. I also believe that team wins without Shanahan. Head coaches are over rated. It is the players on the field that play the game. Shanny's ego gets in the way, and it has spread to his kid. Kyle is supposed to be a boy genius according to daddy, but frankly, he's just not a very good OC. I said that Davis had too short of a career to say anything definitive about his contribution, but that without him, the Broncos likely don't win a SB. I can't say for sure. Teams have won SB's without great RB's just as they have without great QB's. Looking at back Devner, i feel like i can say this without a doubt: Denver does NOT win those 2 SBs without Elway. Denver does NOT win those 2 SBs without Davis. Denver DOES wins those 2 SBs without Shanny.
Mr. WEO Posted December 21, 2010 Posted December 21, 2010 Shanny's ego gets in the way, and it has spread to his kid. Kyle is supposed to be a boy genius according to daddy, but frankly, he's just not a very good OC. Looking at back Devner, i feel like i can say this without a doubt: Denver does NOT win those 2 SBs without Elway. Denver does NOT win those 2 SBs without Davis. Denver DOES wins those 2 SBs without Shanny. Without Shanny, there's no Davis.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted December 21, 2010 Posted December 21, 2010 (edited) Shanny has screwed up more than once this season. Two prime examples are the handling of McNabb and Albert Haynesworth. They benched McNabb in the 2 minute drill weeks ago. If he wasn't your guy then why put him back in only to bench him weeks later as the #3 QB. As for fat Albert, he should have been cut/traded/suspended months ago. He was against ANY scheme the skins wanted to run. He got his $21 mil and that's all he cared about. Hell here's two more reasons Runing backs. He brought in 4 washed up relics to be RB's. Receivers - he kept 39 year old Joey Galloway!!! Keep making excuses for Shanny I'm glad we got Chan instead of Shanny. Why? The Bills are improving while the Skins are falling apart at the seams Without Shanny, there's no Davis. How many roid (raged) filled defensive players did Shanny employ? Edited December 21, 2010 by BillsFan-4-Ever
Recommended Posts