Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

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

KRIEGER: Broncos trying to recapture glory days

By Dave Krieger, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published January 11, 2009 at 10:49 p.m.

Text size  

Poll

Was Josh McDaniels the right pick as Broncos head coach?


  • See the results »

Related Stories

More Denver Broncos

More stories »

Welcome to the next big thing from the gulag in New England, where Bill Belichick's management style comes straight from the handbook on how to grow mushrooms.

Not his fault, but Josh McDaniels follows in the footsteps of Charlie Weis, Romeo Crennel and Eric Mangini. Between them, they've held four head coaching jobs since departing Belichick's lightless bunker. The first three haven't worked out that well, but Mangini, the next big thing just three years ago, now starts as fresh in Cleveland as McDaniels does in Denver.

If Mangini's career is anything like Belichick's, not to mention Mike Shanahan's, he will do better the second time around.

Apparently, the latest acorn from the Belichick tree wowed Broncos owner Pat Bowlen in his interview, which is the same explanation we heard for Gov. Bill Ritter's decision to name widely unknown Mi- chael Bennet to Ken Salazar's not-quite- vacant U.S. Senate seat. Mama, don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys, but definitely teach them how to interview.

Not a defensive guy after all, it turns out. Because the Broncos defense sabotaged their offense last season, a lot of people figured it was time for a head man devoted to stopping somebody. Someone like, well, like Belichick, an old defensive coordinator himself.

But no. Bowlen has hired another Shanahan. By all accounts, a sharp, young offensive mind. Emphasis on young.

When Shanahan first showed up, he was slightly younger than McDaniels is now. At 31, Shanahan was Dan Reeves' receivers coach. He would take over a team for the first time four years later, but not in Denver. Like Bowlen now, Al Davis was reliving his youth.

It didn't work out that well, although it wouldn't keep Davis from trying again. And again. And again.

Shanahan was 44 by the time Bowlen made him head coach, although he could have had the job two years earlier if he had wanted it. Evidently, things just move faster in the Internet age.

At 32, McDaniels becomes the youngest head coach in the NFL. He's slightly older than the youngest head coach in NFL history, Lane Kiffin, whom Davis hired two years ago at 31. He's already gone, but then, so was Shanahan at about the same point in his first gig, also for Davis.

Aside from whatever charismatic pixie dust he sprinkled during his interviews, the argument for McDaniels rests on the Patriots' superb offense over the past three seasons, while he was their coordinator. Coaching Tom Brady would seem to require about as much genius as coaching Eric Clapton, but McDaniels became the next big thing when he did the same for Matt Cassell, a session player suddenly asked to play lead.

With Jay Cutler, Ryan Clady, Brandon Marshall and Eddie Royal in place for the Broncos, you have to assume the offense under McDaniels will be high-powered. Of course, it was already.

On his way out the door, Shanahan said a new coach "would have to be crazy" not to keep his offensive staff, led by play-caller Jeremy Bates, another 32-year-old wunderkind. One wonders just how many of those guys one staff can handle.

The question remains: What about the defense? The answer, evidently, is that McDaniels showed uncommon acumen on that side of the ball, too, breaking down film for the defensive staff and working with the defensive backs during his early years in Belichick's bunker. still, he earned his chops on the offensive side.

Even without a Freud text handy, this seems a fairly transparent attempt by Bowlen to recreate the magic of the Shanahan hire - the smart young offensive mind brought in to coach up the latest rocket man at quarterback.

The problem, as Thomas Wolfe pointed out long ago, is you can't go home again. This was not a commentary on whether players can return to their original teams, as our more literal-minded modern brethren tend to think. It had more to do with the impossibility of recapturing the past.

If we look at the list of NFL head coaches hired at roughly McDaniels' age, we find a decidedly mixed bag.

According to the NFL Hall of Fame, here are the youngest head coaches in NFL history, in ascending order of age:

Kiffin, Harland Svare, John Michelosen, David Shula, John Madden, Don Shula, Davis, Joe Collier, Bob Snyder, Jim Trimble, Jon Gruden, Bill Cowher, Joe Kuharich, Norm Van Brocklin, Mike Tomlin, Joe Schmidt, Mangini, Shanahan and Dick Nolan.

McDaniels ranks fifth on the list, between the younger Shula and Madden.

Some of these guys worked out pretty well. Some didn't. Some failed in their first jobs but succeeded later on.

Not knowing McDaniels, I can't hazard a guess into which camp he'll fall. This much I do know: Before he can do what Bowlen clearly wants him to do, which is turn Cutler into John Elway, he has to rebuild a defense that made whatever Cutler did insufficient the last two seasons.

Based on history, McDaniels has a better chance of succeeding as a head coach than Bowlen does of recapturing his youth as an owner. But then, Thomas Wolfe never saw the Internet age.

Comments

  • January 12, 2009

    12:53 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    flybys writes:

    Pat Bowlen was blinded by his past. He still isn't over his love for Mike Shanahan so he made his next coach someone who reminded him of his past. He allowed his mission to be clouded by emotion and he could very well pay the price for it.

    Leslie Frazier or even Steve Spagnuolo, if interested, and it appears at least Frazier was from what we read, were more logical and yes, better choices.

    Dom Capers has had success as a defensive coordinator, especially in Pittsburgh, and can bring his head coaching experience to Denver to assist Josh McDaniels as much as McDaniels might allow.

    Give Bowlen credit, he is a gambler and maybe he scored the next big thing, a young coach destined to become a star but it says here Bowlen still isn't over Shanahan. He just wanted a do-over, with McDaniels not having the dominant power within the relationship.

    http://coloradosn.blogspot.com

  • January 12, 2009

    5:35 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    annikasdad writes:

    This was a salary dump, and a powerplay move, nothing more.

    Bowlen obviously believes that Shanahan will hook on somewhere soon and he won't have to play his salary and he can also put in his own guy as a token GM.

    Me thinks we have a young Al Davis on our hands, this guy is only a couple of steps from a white track suit and granny glasses.

    OH CRAP!!!!!! THE BRONCOS HAVE BECOME THE ROCKIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • January 12, 2009

    7:08 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    broncophanman writes:

    stupid stupid stupid

  • January 12, 2009

    7:56 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    bagwan writes:

    Based on Krieger's analysis of Pat's moves here, I would say that Annabelle Bowlen better stay alert.

  • January 12, 2009

    7:56 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Caleb2001 writes:

    Why couldnt we wait to interview the Giant's co-ordinator? We didnt he hire Leslie Frazier or Raheem Morris, I dont mind the young part, but our defense is lousy and it needs someone to kick hindends and change to a scheme that attacks, not stands 10 yards off the ball on every reciever. None of Billichick's protege's have had any real success, and I doubt this one will be any better.
    I agree this is a bad move.

  • January 12, 2009

    7:57 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    mexcellent writes:

    Welcome to my world as a Raider fan.......good luck with that! In no way am I upset!

  • January 12, 2009

    8:12 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    hallandnash writes:

    consider we know nothing about him (or any of the other candidates) let's just wait and see.

    the most important move now is a good D-Cordinator.. and the talk is that it's Mike Nolan - which is good news. If Josh has a former NFl coach as his right hand man it's going to ease the transition.

    Don't under estimate the time in the film room with Beliciuk breaking down the defence .. he should be ready.

  • January 12, 2009

    9:03 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Spud41 writes:

    Bowlen is interested in winning - just look at his business life, his own athletic endeavors and the Broncos. I believe he thinks he made the right decsion. Since none of us was in the room when people were interviewed, some coach we thought was great might have interviewed poorly - who knows. I trust Mr. Bowlen to do the right thing - heck, most of us didn't believe for a second that he would ever fire Mike. Let's just see what happens. Now, the defensive co-ordinator job becomes huge.

  • January 12, 2009

    9:55 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    mmorg17 writes:

    I am and always will be a huge Bronco fan. Notice that sentence ends, PERIOD. I have to exude hope for this move, if not than why be fan at all. I am tired of hearing all the nay sayers. If the move turns out to be terrible than and only than will I have problems with it. This guy deserves our support as Bronco fans, if he in Judge Smales words s..s...s...s..s^$#$^@#cks, and he might, than I will call for a new coach. Come on Bronco fans lets get on board and give our undying support it might be the exact thing that this team needs right now. This team needs some energy, why not as fans, do our part to help in the only way we really can. Create the buzz around the city, the players, the coaches and the free agents will feel it. Let's get this thing going. Look up there's an orange horizon of playoff berths and excitement coming. Why be a pessimist, it's the lowest common denominator, enjoy this ride, it could be fun and should be for right now.

  • January 12, 2009

    10:22 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    slickwilly writes:

    This "article" is nothing more than a hit piece. Without knowing at all what McDaniels will or will not do as coach, this guy ripped him and Bowlen apart.

    I am neither excited nor angry about this selection because we just don't know. Sure, I liked Frazier or Spagnuolo too, but who's to say they would be better.

    But, if you go by past acheivements he has one heck of a resume. Doing what he did this year with a QB who hadn't started a game since high school is something, in my opinion.

    I, for one, like to have a younger guy in there that can bring some excitement and energy to a team that didn't seem to have any at all.

  • January 12, 2009

    11:01 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    OrangeCrush_77 writes:

    How many of you people were in the interviews? You have no body of work to judge, so why don't you at least wait to pass judgement. Firing a coach who hadn't done squat in ten years is not a "salary-dump," especially when the owner still has to pay him.

    Bowlen has always been about winning. Is he perfect? No. But I would take him over almost every owner in the league. He wants to win, and I'm sure that this was first and foremost in his mind when he chose McDaniels. Krieger can throw Freud around, or anything he wants, but look back at his last month of columns. He correctly predicted the Broncos would miss the playoffs (when they were up by three games), and then wrote a half-dozen articles implying that change was needed and that Shanny wasn't getting the job done. Then they fired him and Krieger wrote an article saying the Broncos would regret it. Now they have hired a new coach, and Krieger writes a negative article right off the bat.

    Nobody knows how this is going to turn out. Nobody! Yes, it could be bad . . . or it could be good. However, trying to imply that Bowlen hired McDaniels for old-aged psychological reasons is ridiculous. But . . . what can you expect from a hack who's main literary device has been "the dude" - his son, who advises Daddy on how he should feel about the things he is too old and stupid to understand.

  • January 12, 2009

    11:50 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Jubei writes:

    Give the new guy a chance.

    Nolan on his own is a vast improvement over Slowik, so in a way you could look at it as a two-for-one deal. Likely losing O'Brien will be addition by subtraction.

    If McD is wise enough to at least retain Bobby Turner and the zone-blocking scheme, then I will be very impressed. Let him build the rest of his staff, explain his philosophies regarding all three phases of the game, and then we can all start to pick him apart.

    Until then, the guy hasn't even coached one snap as the new HC, so we don't really have any concrete data upon which to base our judgments.

  • January 12, 2009

    11:58 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    PDXBroncos writes:

    We'll see how it plays out. From a fan perspective, I'd figure to clear out defense, special teams and strength/conditioning, on the coaching side. No need to mess with the offensive staff.

    McDaniels will have his own agenda, of course.

    Will the Broncos commit the the 3-4? Will we see a bunch of free agent action on defense? Draft dynamic?

    We do not know, but will find out soon enough. I am just a fan, but like most hardcore Denver fans, I eagerly wait to see what happens, and hope that these upcoming changes lead to a cohesive and solid team on both sides of the ball--in and out of the lockerroom.

  • January 12, 2009

    12:12 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    bassman writes:

    I wouldn't exactly say this is a hit piece but, clearly Krieger is not happy with it. This is a gamble, no question. Spags was the easy,safe choice. And yes we did interview him once. I'm sure Krieger would have fallen over himself to congratulate Bowlen had he hired Spags. I preferred Spags as well but maybe Bowlen is onto something. This team has a lot of talent on the offensive side. If we are to return to glory, the team needs to be built around it's current strengths. The defensive talent does not exist to rebuild it quickly. No matter who was named head coach. Nolan or Capers can build a good enough defense but, it will take time. Luckily, Shanny left us with 2 extra picks in a very deep draft.

  • January 12, 2009

    12:41 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    bilco writes:

    You guys just don't GET IT!!! Shanahan was dumped because many of the players that he coached quit on the Mastermind. You've heard the story of the youngsters that arrived late for the plane to San Diego and Shanahan was furious. Then in the game with SDiego, the defense just QUIT!

    That's when Bowlen KNEW he HAD to make a change! When your players don't respect you any longer, you are DEAD MEAT!

    I agree, give the kid a chance, seriously, with all the draft picks we have this year, and maybe bringing in a guy like Nolan on the defense, I seriously doubt we could do worse than 8-8 and have the TOTAL collapse that we had at the end of this season!

    Thoughts?

  • January 12, 2009

    1:37 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Dave Krieger writes:

    Thanks for the comments. I want you to know I do read them and learn from them.

    In this case, I want to respond to try to clarify where I'm coming from. OrangeCrush_77 (great username), much of your synopsis of my recent columns is on the money, but I think there's also an important misunderstanding in there. The column you characterize as "saying the Broncos would regret" firing Shanahan actually had a more complicated message than that. The first half of the column traced the history of the coaches who have followed legends. Shanahan, the winningest coach in Broncos history, falls into that category, at least for this franchise, in my opinion. Most of those who have followed such coaches haven't done as well, obviously. It's hard to find two legends in a row, although the column mentions a couple of instances (Pittsburgh, Dallas) where it happened. So I said the odds are that firing Shanahan will look like a mistake, based on the won/loss records, a decade from now.

    But the second half of that column described why firing him was necessary anyway. So to say that my conclusion was the Broncos would regret firing Shanahan is not accurate, in my view. Here's the link and you can decide for yourselves:

    http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...

    The columns I wrote that Crush correctly characterizes as suggesting change was needed were all based on the poor defense, in particular the poor job of selecting defensive personnel. If that's the Broncos' main problem, my question is how an offensive hire at head coach, combined with an apparent ambivalence about hiring a new GM, solves it. I'm not convinced yet another defensive coordinator can solve it by himself. In this decade, they've been through five of those (Robinson, Rhodes, Coyer, Bates, Slowik). Each tweaked the scheme. Bates had one scheme, Slowik another. They were 28th under Bates, 29th under Slowik. The talent wasn't there. Lots of folks want them to blitz more, but they've done that, too. Eventually, opponents figured it out and burned it. So how they solve their main problem, the defense, is still my question.

    One more thing. I often get the, "Why don't you wait and see?" question. It's a perfectly valid point of view, but I'm paid to write about these things right away. The Rocky wouldn't be too pleased if I left the column hole blank and said I wanted to wait and see. Coming up with an immediate take is the job description. Inevitably, some of my takes will be premature. Some will be just plain wrong. That comes with the territory.

    Crush, sorry you don't like my conversations with The Dude, but a lot of folks do. The nice thing about writing four columns a week is you can enjoy the ones you find interesting and ignore the others. Not sure the name-calling is necessary, but that's your call.

    Thanks again to everyone who participates in these conversations. Carry on!

  • January 12, 2009

    2:26 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Jubei writes:

    So Dave, is it a sure thing that the Goodmans, and Brian Xanders are the GM 'team' in place for McDaniels? If so, is it possible that given the removal of Shanahan and his final say, that these guys could start bringing in better talent on defense?

    I think most of us would agree with you that the personnel on the field were the main driver of the poor defensive showing the last few seasons. I also think most of us would agree that while Shanahan found some gems on offense through FA, he reeked in that regard on defense. Webster is a prime example of this, along with Niko, Daryl Gardener, Dale Carter, and the list goes on...

    Perhaps with a personnel department that is given the freedom to do its job, we just might see better defensive talent both in the draft and in free agency.

  • January 12, 2009

    3:35 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    OrangeCrush_77 writes:

    Dave,

    Thanks for the response. It's the second time I have seen a response from a News writer this week. I appreciate much of what you had to say, but I would like to respond to your assertion that you "are paid to write about these things right away," and therefor "coming up with an immediate take is the job description."

    While I certainly understand that yours is a competitive field, with more and more "talking-heads" offering their "take" every day, it is my contention that too many of these "takes" are simply emotive, and are very rarely rooted in any kind of fact or logic. Again, I ask if you were involved in any of these interviews? Isn't it possible that McDaniels gave the strongest interview, presented the best long-term plan and came across as the most competent? To be fair, you are not the only one who is trying to compare Shanahan and McDaniels, but to jump into Bowlen's psyche and make a ridiculous Freudian implication is simply lazy and anemic. And, after going back to read your past columns, I still find it a valid criticism to say that you have played both sides of the fence.

    Yes, when you are trying to deliver instant "takes" you are inevitably going be wrong at times, but I think you need to be careful not to use that as an excuse for being able to say whatever you are feeling at the moment. That is too much of a net to work with, grants you too much leeway and, frankly, I think it shows in much of your work.

    I am truly sorry that I called you a "hack" and "stupid," it was not nice and I regret it. However, I do think you have a responsibility, no matter how hurried your thoughts or impressions, to at least be able support your thoughts with a modicum of fact.

    As for "the dude," I know he is your son, and I mean no disrespect to him, personally. I think we will just have to disagree about the relevance of your son's opinions in the Rocky Mountain News.

  • January 12, 2009

    3:48 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Dave Krieger writes:

    Jubei, not a sure thing as far as I know. When I asked Bowlen the GM question at the Shanahan firing presser, he said he hadn't thought about it. I hope to have a chance to ask it again this afternoon. I have a little trouble with the notion that Goodman, Goodman and Xanders get credit for the '06 and '08 drafts and Shanahan gets the blame for '07. I think that's a little too convenient. But I hope to get a better sense of their plans going forward today.

    Crush, I stand by the comparison. In age and offensive background, Shanahan and McDaniels are similar. I have no doubt McDaniels impressed in the interview. I said so. But interviewing well and coaching well are two different things. Because you do the former does not necessarily mean you'll do the latter. I think the defense questions still need to be asked. One further note: Just because you don't agree does not mean what I had to say was not valid or did not deserve to be published. Respecting the right of people to have views different from your own is a pretty important part of civil conversation. There are some Broncos fans who are unhappy with any criticism of the team. But my job is not to be a cheerleader.

    Now I'm off to Broncos HQ. I'll be happy to pick this up tonight, either on this thread or a new one attached to the column I'll be filing this evening from Dove Valley.

  • January 12, 2009

    4:19 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    upacreek333 writes:

    Dave,

    Refreshing to see a columnist mix it up with the plebes... I'm sure I'm not the only one who appreciates it.

    A former newspaper guy myself, I'm in a fit of depression over the Rocky's impending demise--any chance a bunch of you Denver scribes might consider teaming up and starting a top-notch Denver sports website? In my opinion, and I think it's valid, given my experience, Denver's sports press consists of a lot of talented folks who take their jobs seriously. I read both papers and get about the same from each one, and when the day comes and the Rocky ceases to publish, the town (and the region--I live in Idaho, for example) will be worse off.

    I'd love to see a few of you folks stick around and find a way to keep us all informed. Thoughts?

  • January 12, 2009

    4:48 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Jubei writes:

    Dave, thanks for the reply.

    We as fans don't really know WHO was responsible for discovering the draft/FA talent during the Shanahan years, good or bad. However, we all know that Mike had the final say on who was acquired and who ultimately made the roster.

    So while I understand your point regarding the '06-'08 drafts, I think we can safely say that Mike was ultimately responsible for both the good AND the bad acquisitions. But when it came to the bad draft years, and the bad FA pick ups, was it the personnel guys giving Mike a weak pool of talent to choose from, or was it Mike just making poor choices? We'll likely never know.

    With a hard line drawn between the personnel people and the coaching staff, both the media and the fans may finally be able to point the finger at either bad coaching or bad personnel, and by extension, the parties responsible.

    That wasn't really possible until Mike left.

  • January 13, 2009

    8:43 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Dave Krieger writes:

    upacreek, thanks for the good thoughts. I'm afraid I have no idea what happens if what now seems inevitable comes to pass. Your idea is a good one, but it would require someone with a business plan that allows writers to make a living, which I have yet to see. Journalists don't tend to be independently wealthy, so most of us will have to find paying jobs asap, in or out of our chosen field.