Denver Broncos coach Mike Shanahan just signed a three-year contract extension with the team. His deal now runs to the end of the 2011 season.
That sounds like a really long time, and it is. Five more years. Even a president as Rushmore-bound as George W. Bush only gets voted in for four years at a time. But I'm still pretty pleased with the move.
Last year was one of Shanahan's worst in Denver, considering the expectations on the team going in to the season. The Broncos hosted the AFC Championship the year before, and added Javon Walker to an already-potent squad. There were some losses, too-like when Trevor Pryce and Mike Anderson were cut for no real reason-but there was no reason not to expect the team to return to the playoffs with ease.
Instead, the team struggled all year on offense, which is Shanahan's specialty, and missed the playoffs. I feel the coach handled the quarterback situation especially poorly. He played the struggling Jake Plummer for weeks without really standing behind him, then switched to a rookie, Jay Cutler, when it was all but too late.
And this highlights my only real problem with the deal: Shanahan's recent history with personnel. When he started with the Broncos, he had the Midas touch, finding stars both through the draft (John Mobley, Tom Nalen, Terrell Davis) and big-name free agent signings (Neil Smith). Even better was his luck with relative unknowns, like Ed McCaffrey, Bill Romanowski, and Keith Traylor. Even his minor pickups, like backup quarterback Bubby Brister, sometimes paid huge dividends. Shanahan crafted a perfect balance of veterans and young players. The Broncos had three dominant seasons and won two Super Bowls.
Over time, though, his judgment has wavered. The Broncos have cast off seemingly every double-digit sack man (Reggie Hayward, Pryce, Bertrand Berry) in favor of a Cleveland Brown. The team couldn't find a decent third receiver for years, and none of their young pass-catchers, with the possible-but-stretching-it exception of Ashley Lelie, ever developed. There was also some dismal luck with defensive backs. (To be fair, the team remained a running back factory and built several successful offensive lines.)
But while I question Shanahan's personnel moves-and three bonus years of job security in the notoriously unstable NFL shows he's not relinquishing that power anytime soon-he's one of the best football coaches on the planet. Who is clearly better? Perhaps Bill Belichick, whom I consider the best coach around. I remind you, though, that just a few years ago all the compliments now paid to Belichick were instead going in Shanahan's direction. Bill Parcells and Joe Gibbs may have had better careers at one time, but it'd be hard to take them over the Tan Man now. Bill Cowher's good, but a little overrated. I don't think Tony Dungy is even in Shanahan's league, personally, though maybe that's unfair. Lovie Smith is a nice up-and-comer who's still a long way from two rings.
I guess I'm most curious about how the Broncos would do with Shanahan coaching but with someone else running the personnel side. (Shanahan's not the general manager-Ted Sundquist is-but it seems clear to me that Shanahan has the final say on everything.) On one hand, conflicts between coach and front office can ruin a pretty good thing (ahem San Diego). On the other, the Seattle Seahawks have been much better since Mike Holmgren, Shanahan's one-time Super Bowl opponent, moved exclusively to the sideline.
Despite last year's struggles, I think Shanahan is still a top coach and should be for the forseeable future. (As the article notes, the Broncos have the best regular-season record in the NFL since Shanahan was hired.) Pat Bowlen has said several times that Shanahan can coach in Denver as long as he wants. I believe Bowlen and more or less support that notion. Considering the value stability brings, and the unlikelihood that we can improve at the position, the extension is a good move. HPS approved.
That sounds like a really long time, and it is. Five more years. Even a president as Rushmore-bound as George W. Bush only gets voted in for four years at a time. But I'm still pretty pleased with the move.
Last year was one of Shanahan's worst in Denver, considering the expectations on the team going in to the season. The Broncos hosted the AFC Championship the year before, and added Javon Walker to an already-potent squad. There were some losses, too-like when Trevor Pryce and Mike Anderson were cut for no real reason-but there was no reason not to expect the team to return to the playoffs with ease.
Instead, the team struggled all year on offense, which is Shanahan's specialty, and missed the playoffs. I feel the coach handled the quarterback situation especially poorly. He played the struggling Jake Plummer for weeks without really standing behind him, then switched to a rookie, Jay Cutler, when it was all but too late.
And this highlights my only real problem with the deal: Shanahan's recent history with personnel. When he started with the Broncos, he had the Midas touch, finding stars both through the draft (John Mobley, Tom Nalen, Terrell Davis) and big-name free agent signings (Neil Smith). Even better was his luck with relative unknowns, like Ed McCaffrey, Bill Romanowski, and Keith Traylor. Even his minor pickups, like backup quarterback Bubby Brister, sometimes paid huge dividends. Shanahan crafted a perfect balance of veterans and young players. The Broncos had three dominant seasons and won two Super Bowls.
Over time, though, his judgment has wavered. The Broncos have cast off seemingly every double-digit sack man (Reggie Hayward, Pryce, Bertrand Berry) in favor of a Cleveland Brown. The team couldn't find a decent third receiver for years, and none of their young pass-catchers, with the possible-but-stretching-it exception of Ashley Lelie, ever developed. There was also some dismal luck with defensive backs. (To be fair, the team remained a running back factory and built several successful offensive lines.)
But while I question Shanahan's personnel moves-and three bonus years of job security in the notoriously unstable NFL shows he's not relinquishing that power anytime soon-he's one of the best football coaches on the planet. Who is clearly better? Perhaps Bill Belichick, whom I consider the best coach around. I remind you, though, that just a few years ago all the compliments now paid to Belichick were instead going in Shanahan's direction. Bill Parcells and Joe Gibbs may have had better careers at one time, but it'd be hard to take them over the Tan Man now. Bill Cowher's good, but a little overrated. I don't think Tony Dungy is even in Shanahan's league, personally, though maybe that's unfair. Lovie Smith is a nice up-and-comer who's still a long way from two rings.
I guess I'm most curious about how the Broncos would do with Shanahan coaching but with someone else running the personnel side. (Shanahan's not the general manager-Ted Sundquist is-but it seems clear to me that Shanahan has the final say on everything.) On one hand, conflicts between coach and front office can ruin a pretty good thing (ahem San Diego). On the other, the Seattle Seahawks have been much better since Mike Holmgren, Shanahan's one-time Super Bowl opponent, moved exclusively to the sideline.
Despite last year's struggles, I think Shanahan is still a top coach and should be for the forseeable future. (As the article notes, the Broncos have the best regular-season record in the NFL since Shanahan was hired.) Pat Bowlen has said several times that Shanahan can coach in Denver as long as he wants. I believe Bowlen and more or less support that notion. Considering the value stability brings, and the unlikelihood that we can improve at the position, the extension is a good move. HPS approved.
Comments
Just the other day I was wondering if Elway's banishment away from the Broncos and to the arena league doesn't have something to do with Shanny's ego - i.e., that Shanny could never coexist with a bigger name than his in the front office. It makes sense to me that Bowlen would have tried to bring Elway back in some capacity by now and also that the Tan Man wouldn't have allowed it. Your thoughts?
What would Elway do for us? I imagine he could be useless as a quarterback coach ("You know, Jay, Javon was wide open about seventy yards down the other side of the field on that play..."). I don't know how he'd do as a GM-you'd think he'd know what matters in a player, but then Michael Jordan was terrible at it. Of course, Elway's dad was a coach, so he's seen that side of the game more, and I think he'd outwork Jordan by a ton. (Just look at the fact that he's in the Arena league-can you see Jordan with an NBDL squad?)
I don't know, I guess it'd be hard to see him taking any kind of lower position, and it'd be weird to see him jump into a high one. Not that I'd ever criticize Elway, but if the Broncos named him GM, I wouldn't necessarily be sure he'd do all that gre-you know, even with the qualifiers, I'd feel guilty finishing that sentence in any kind of a negative way. Seriously, it's something to consider. What job do you think he'd do for the Broncos?
john elway can do whatever the hell he wants. he could strap on the pads tomorrow and take us to three more championships.
i guess i'm just a little suspicious of the tan man (more like red man, sans racial connotation) and his propensity for power-grubbing.
i have a feeling that bowlen and shanahan have that ancient greece-brotherly relationships going on. no one is that close.
while the offense was impotent last year, he still is one of the best (and most respected) names out there. under his helm denver is in the game to nab any free-agent we want (salary cap permitting, of course).
he's not afraid to spend the bucks, and he makes gutsy calls.
i just wish he'd go easy on the tanning bed, fool's got melanoma written all over him.
also, i wish he'd give up on the running back-quorum idea. that thing is as useless as the sunday that SOME elder's quorums divide up into the three-fold missions committees.
al wilson... gone.
very sad day.
Amen on the backs, though more I guess I wish we'd just hang on to the good ones. And is anything in the world a bigger waste of time than those Sundays?