Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

KRIEGER: Bowlen-Shanahan parting respectful, but questions remain

By Dave Krieger, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published December 31, 2008 at 8:06 p.m.

Text size  

More Denver Broncos

More stories »

It was a partnership that spanned a quarter-century and reached the highest highs pro sports have to offer.

As it ended, each partner was overcome by emotion discussing the other. It was like a marriage sabotaged by time, sad but amicable.

That's how close Pat Bowlen and Mike Shanahan were.

That's why Bowlen said for so long that Shanahan could coach the Broncos as long as he liked.

"I don't have any regrets about saying it," Bowlen said. "I guess nothing's forever."

A minute or two after Bowlen vacated the team auditorium at Dove Valley, Shanahan took the podium there for the last time. In a warm, generous farewell, he sympathized more with Bowlen for having to fire him than himself for getting fired.

"I believe Pat Bowlen meant exactly that," he said of the many assurances. "But hey, I meant that, too, when I hired different people. And all of a sudden it's just, it's the time, it might not be perfect, but you've got to make those tough decisions. You don't always like those decisions because they do affect a lot of people, but sometimes you've got to make those tough decisions, what you think is in the best interests of the organization.

"Like I told him, Pat Bowlen and I will be friends forever. Pat Bowlen has stood by me time and time again. When he's got to make the tough decision, I can relate to it. I know one thing - it was tougher on him than it is on me. I guarantee you that."

Shanahan was so sympathetic to Bowlen's plight, he did a better job explaining why he was fired than Bowlen did.

The Broncos owner kept saying it was time, but he offered no specifics. The common criticism - that Shanahan the coach was undercut by Shanahan the general manager - got no endorsement from Bowlen. He said Shanahan did fine at both. It was just time.

"You know, I can't explain that to you guys," Bowlen said. "I'm an owner. That's what I do. I'm here every day. It's my job. So I have to operate on my instincts. So it's very hard for me to explain to anybody in this room why my instincts are the way they are. They're just my instincts.

"I may end up regretting this decision, but right now I'm very comfortable with the decision that we've got to go in a different direction. I'm also comfortable with the idea that Mike will get another job in another organization and do well."

This, of course, is what puts the pressure on Bowlen now. Over 14 years as Broncos head coach, Shanahan won 62 percent of his games. That's a lot. Bowlen will have to pick a heck of a replacement to get comparable numbers.

Unfortunately, the difficulty of the divorce did not give him a head start on his search. After saying he did not expect his next coach to wear all of Shanahan's hats, Bowlen was asked if he would hire a general manager first.

"I haven't thought about it," he said.

One can be sensitive to the emotional parting and still find that response a little disconcerting. The owner hasn't thought about whether he needs a GM?

"This is a process that starts today," he said. "It didn't start yesterday. Yesterday was a day I had to terminate my head coach. It was a very difficult day. Now today we start the process of selecting a new head coach. I'm not sure how long it'll take, and I don't even know who the candidates are at this point in time. But we will get a good head coach."

Asked if he might be GM himself, like Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, Bowlen replied, "Hell, no." And yet he sounded determined to hire the next coach himself.

What this means for the organizational structure going forward is not clear. If the owner hires the coach, the general manager, if there is one, would have a lesser stature than if he selected the coach. Shanahan said a new coach “would have to be crazy” to let the offensive staff go. After initially saying he didn’t expect any of the coaches back, Bowlen later clarified, through a team spokesman, that it will be the new coach’s call.

Bowlen also said the personnel department is doing "a terrific job" and needs no changes. The general consensus around the league is that the Broncos' 29th-ranked defensive personnel are below average. One possible explanation is he wants to make John Elway the GM but isn't ready to say so.

All that will be sorted out in the days to come. This was a day to pay respects to the end of an era that included as many championships as losing seasons. As Shanahan might say, that doesn't happen very often in the National Football League.

After all these years, Pat Bowlen finally felt it was time for a change. And though he disagreed, nobody understood Bowlen's torment better than Mike Shanahan.

Comments

  • January 1, 2009

    12:02 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mark13 writes:

    UH, Ok why is it again that Shanahan was fired? I'm not quite getting it. Could it be that Bowlen lost his spine all the sudden. The Titans stuck with Jeff Fischer and have the best record in the NFL. The Giants, after calls for the coaches head even louder than those for Shanahan, stuck by their coach and won the Superbowl. Good luck finding a suitable replacement.

  • January 1, 2009

    12:03 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Broncofan_in_Boston writes:

    I love John Elway, but that's pretty risky to give him the GM position. He hasn't even had any position in an NFL front office, with all due respect to his work in the Arena League.

    Apples and oranges.

    I'm all for Elway having a position and playing an important role. I think it would be awesome to have him be an assistant GM, grooming him to be the next GM, pres, whatever. He's such a huge part of the Denver Broncos. It would be a great thing to have him continue to be one of the faces of the organization.

    But I want to win... NOW! I don't want to be breaking in a new GM after 10 years of frustration.

    Maybe Bowlen is also grooming Elway for a whole other position.

    John Elway... owner of the Denver Broncos. Is Bowlen the type of guy that would want to keep it in the Bronco family? He might be. I know he once offered some part of ownership to John.

    Don't have a clue if John has that type of cash. He had those car dealerships that he sold for some number of 100's of millions. Of course, he's also divorced... all of us married guys no how that goes.

    I don't know, I'm just throwing sh#t out there.

    This is pretty exciting... not only who the GM will be, then the coach, the assistant coaches... and then personnel... its gonna be some ride.

  • January 1, 2009

    12:13 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Jubei writes:

    GM first, Head Coach second, then the Defensive Coordinator, then the Special Teams coach.

    Leave the offense, the offensive assistants, and terminology alone as much as possible (if it's not broke, don't fix it). However, the play-calling needs to be looked at, although I think Bates will be better next season given the opportunity.

    The GM and HC need to be very honest and critical of our current talent. If players and assistants don't fit the bill, lose 'em (within the constraints of the salary cap, of course).

    A smart GM and coach will observe first, and then act. This team is not the Detroit Lions. With one of the three phases on the verge of greatness, we just need people who will formulate a long-term plan with that in mind.

  • January 1, 2009

    12:38 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Jubei writes:

    Mark13, I think Bowlen was watching the whole operation very closely this season. I'm sure he knew that there were already some well-established teams out there with very clearly delineated roles for the GM and the head coach. I believe that this season was the make-or-break season for the idea of one man assuming both roles in Denver.

    You mention Fisher and the Titans. The Titans have a GM. Fisher is the coach and the EVP. NOT the GM. You also mentioned the Giants. Jerry Reese is the GM, Tom Coughlin is the HC. Coughlin was an inch from getting canned until their late-season rampage on the way to the Super Bowl. Much of the credit for the championship in NY was thrown at the feet of Reese and his personnel decisions.

    Let me also point out Bill Parcells and Tony Sparano in Miami, Ozzie Newzome and John Harbaugh in Baltimore, Thomas Dimitroff and Mike Smith in Atlanta. Again, two roles, two men. Also, all three of the head coaches mentioned are first-timers who happen to be taking teams to the playoffs.

    The common thread here is that in today's NFL, the job of a head coach is one that requires 100 hours a week BY ITSELF. The GM is not much different. For one man to do both jobs, one or the other will likely suffer for it.

    My speculation is that Bowlen gave Shanahan the option of maintaining all of his titles EXCEPT that of general manager, which Shanahan declined.

    So if that was how it went down, you could say that Bowlen WAS supporting his head coach. Just not the GM, who happened to be the same guy.

  • January 1, 2009

    1:10 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Robfromaurora writes:

    We fire our coach with absolutely no alternate plans in place? Not even structural plans? GM first? Coach first? Anyone running a business knows this: Plans before Actions.

    This was an emotional reaction to a horrible loss, to a division rival, in a tough season at their house. Period. Think it wasn't an emotional reaction? When asked if Bowlen would have made this decision if the Broncos were in the playoff, he responded "I don't know" Which to me says: I am mad or upset and am firing my coach right now.

    We should have waited, let the emotions settle, talk about all possible resolutions then and only then take the ultimate action in firing the coach. Nobody knew more than Shanahan that we needed drastic changes, we all knew it!!

    Bowlen wants us to trust his instincts, but he just traded a simple headache for a migrane. Now we not only need to worry about defensive improvements, but need a new GM, new coach, new defensive coordinator, special teams, etc..etc. We have quite possibly the most important draft and off season coming up that we have faced in many years and we fire our coach....Sheesh.

    We aren't the Dolphins, Jets, Browns. We have half of a superbowl team in place already. We didn't need this!

    When I first heard the news I thought GOOD! But now the emotion is gone, reality has set back in and I think we are in trouble. Trust your insticts Pat? I went and bought a bottle of Tylenol Migrane and am waiting for what is next.

  • January 1, 2009

    1:55 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mark13 writes:

    Ok the coach can't be the GM as if we haven't heard that forever. It seemed to work when Shanahan built a Superbown team. It almost worked when the Broncos went to the AFC Championship game 3 short years ago.
    I agree some of the moves made in between were not great. I don't think that the Broncos would have Cutler without Shanahan's manuvering. I don't think any other coach will measure up and I think they were one year away from former glory. Now, I don't think Bowlen has a clue where this is all going.

  • January 1, 2009

    2:35 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Jubei writes:

    Mark13, as so many of the trolls from other teams like to point out, the SB wins were ten YEARS ago.

    While the offense is most definitely on the rise, the defense went from suspect to bad to putrid. Used to be that we couldn't stop the pass; now we can't stop the pass or the run, and the turnovers have been steadily decreasing with every year. We have sporadically hit on defensive players in the draft, but not nearly like we have on the offensive side. And we continue to bring in free agents that provide little or no impact (also unlike the offense, see Casey Weigmann).

    Special teams issues are also indicative of a lack of quality depth on both sides of the ball. You have to admit that it was Shanahan who ultimately decided to let Elam go, whether you agreed with the move or not. Now we have a suspect kicker, awful coverage teams, and return teams who can't create holes. Kern is about the only bright spot on that unit.

    I personally don't think that the extent of the problems on defense is something that can be overcome in one off-season. We have schematic problems, personnel problems, and a glaring lack of quality depth on that side of the ball. Most importantly, I saw a defense in the last three games that COMPLETELY GAVE UP.

    Some might say that now is the worst time to make a big change. I say that with at least one phase that is near the best in the league, now might be the best time for a change. That offense will entice a defensive-minded GM and head coach. Those guys wont have to worry about resuscitating the entire team.

    Like it or not, the decision has been made. If some want to think that Bowlen made a decision of this magnitude without thinking of the consequences, that's their thing. This is a multi-hundred-million dollar business. I'm pretty sure there were some contingency plans in place.

  • January 1, 2009

    3:35 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mark13 writes:

    Defensive minded GM's and coaches are a dime a dozen. Guys like Herm Edwards, Romeo Cranell, Wade Phillips, Matt Millen. They really worked out well. How about we hire Carl Peterson? He was a seperate GM for the Chiefs. Good thing one man wasn't running that stellar operation.

    As far as Elam, I agree, that was a move I didn't like. But come on it's a kicker for crying out loud. Just get a better one.

  • January 1, 2009

    5:25 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Jubei writes:

    So because one team (the Chiefs) happens to have a defensive-minded coach and a separate GM, that means that the idea is a bad one?

    You have NO IDEA if the future of this team is going to be good, bad or otherwise, yet you act like losing Shanahan is the end of the 'great run' that we've been on. Like being a .500 team over the last three seasons with a bad defense trending further downward is something to hold on to.

    I'll agree to disagree with you. And it may turn out that you're right. But I think that while you are free to choose to say with certainty that this WILL be a bad thing, I am free to say that it just MAY turn out to be a good thing.

  • January 2, 2009

    10:10 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Disgusted_in_Denver writes:

    Why is it that a great deal of Bronco fans continually go to the "good luck finding a replacement" line? Yeah, Shanny was part of the 2 Superbowl wins but largely because they were not his teams and he had one John Elway. His record without Elway was respectable but not great. Get over it, it was time for a change. Shanny shot himself in the foot by being a terrible talent evaluator, GM. His arrogance cost him his job. Look at the record with and without Elway and be the judge.

    47 – 17 – Elway
    91 – 69 – post Elway