Ted Sundquist, who's been the Denver Broncos' general manager since 2002, no longer holds that title. (It's not clear what the circumstances of his departure are yet.) From the linked AP article:
In a brief statement Wednesday, head coach Mike Shanahan said the organization needed to fresh ideas.
'I am grateful to Ted for all his hard work and efforts on behalf of the Broncos for the past 16 years,' Shanahan said. 'Now is the time for our organization to move forward and look at new directions. We are prepared to do so, starting with our ongoing draft planning, and along with continuing preparations for our mini-camps and training camp.'
This is a surprising move, at least to me. (Did anyone else see this coming?) There's no question the Broncos could do much better acquiring new players through the draft and free agency. However, and I mean no offense to Mr. Sundquist or his family, but I don't think I'm alone in seeing him as something of a puppet general manager. Whether or not he actually did make many of the decisions himself, it always seemed like Shanahan was ultimately responsible.
I mean, did Ted Sundquist single-handedly decide to release the heart and soul of the defense last year? And did Ted Sundquist undermine Jake Plummer and run him out of town prematurely? Because, gosh, whoever's been doing all that--it seems to me like that guy's the one who should be held responsible.
Maybe Sundquist pushed hard for these and other bad decisions. Or maybe he really did have no input, and just got to be a general manager of an NFL team for a few years without having any real responsibilities. Guess he wouldn't exactly be a victim in either situation, though it does suck to lose your job.
I imagine we'll get a clearer picture of the reasons for this move in the days ahead; I'm just unsure how this will help the Broncos going forward.
Of course, the decisions coming from Dove Valley will still bear the indelible mark of Shanahan. I've maintained for ages that Shanahan is among the best coaches in the NFL, and is, in all practical terms, good enough that it's impossible for any new hire to be an improvement.
I've also thought in recent years, though, that he's lost his Midas touch as a personnel evaluator. Here's a guy who had drafted well high (Trevor Pryce, Al Wilson), low (Terrell David, Tom Nalen), and signed big names (Neil Smith), unknowns (Ed McCaffrey), and known busts (Bubby Brister) and made them all shine. But lately, it's all gone the other way. For example, since the mid-'90s, the Broncos have developed exactly one wide receiver (Brandon Marshall), despite drafting Marcus Nash and Ashley Lelie in the first round, and they've disposed of nearly every productive pass rusher they've stumbled into.
On the other hand, the team has had a progression of fantastic running backs, and I'll admit I was absolutely wrong about the Clinton Portis for Champ Bailey and a No. 2 deal. Shanahan's not a failure or anything, but he's not the world's best anymore, either.
I've suggested before that Shanahan should coach as long as he wants, but that the team should reduce his influence on personnel matters. That may not be realistic, and I think at this point he either stays in all his roles, or he goes. And despite a mostly-disappointing decade (only the 2005 team approached greatness, though the 2000 squad showed promise), I don't think that Shanahan's time in Denver has come. But I also don't think it's a ridiculous question to be asking anymore. What do you think?
Comments
The biggest problem with the Shanahan regime is group think - Shanahan is so convinced that he is right about everything that no one dares - or can - stand up and disagree with him. And he of course surrounds himself with yes-men like Sundquist. That is not exactly the formula for dynamic decisionmaking, and our player personnel decisions have obviously suffered because of it.
Plus, I am not so sure that his earlier personnel decisions were really all that great. Sure, you have named some solid players, but some were luck (Davis - kind of like a Tom Brady pick), and others were system guys who had the good fortune to play for the right team (Nalen). But how hard is it to pick the right guys when you already have multiple Pro Bowlers and a Super Bowl roster? To my mind it is much tougher to raise a team from medicority to contention.
It is definitely appropriate to be asking questions about Shanahan - after all, what exactly has he done since Elway retired?
And, sure, there's luck involved in the Nalen and Davis picks; if the Broncos had known what was at stake, they would have drafted those players higher. But there's also skill. The team was smart enough to, like the Moneyball A's, look for the kinds of player that other teams weren't: linemen who could last through four playoff quarters, and running backs who made up with power and elusiveness for what they lacked in 40 time.
There was a time when, because of luck or skill or whatever, it made a lot of sense to give Shanahan complete control over football operations, and his history is why he's managed to maintain that hold for so long. My point is: don't forget how good he was, and I still say the Super Bowls were worth whatever we've had to put up with to this point.
What I'm most curious about is how Pat Bowlen really feels now. In the early-to-mid-2000s, he always said Shanahan could coach here as long as he wants, which made a lot of sense when he was only a few years removed from the championship and, as you said, still had that obvious passion. (I wonder if that's still there, and if we just don't hear about it since the team is struggling to make the playoffs all the time...though I agree that it feels like something is missing.) I am starting to wonder how long Bowlen will be patient with this team.
My personal view is that, records aside, the Broncos teams from a few years ago were much closer to winning the Super Bowl than the team is now . . . it is almost as if we have traded the risk of a few bad seasons from signing unknown or older players for the perpetual mediocrity of trying to make do.
I, too, wonder what Bowlen is thinking. He is definitely loyal, but at what point does he want to start winning again?
(Of course Denver’s biggest problem, and the hardest one to solve, is the lack of a marquee quarterback, which is the one thing that gives a franchise staying power. That reminds me, I need to do my annual QB round-up.)
Anyway, do you think the Broncos need to blow up the team and start all over? They already have taken some steps in that direction with Jay Cutler, but on the other hand we don’t seem to have a lot of young talent at key positions. Do you think it’d be worth scrapping the next couple of seasons?
One thing we definitely need to improve on is the rate at which our player signings actually solve a need. What I mean is simple: we draft and sign guys who either don't play up to their potential or whose talent we squander or who we give up on prematurely. Quarterback is a great example - Griese was never the answer, Plummer was thrown under the bus, and Cutler wasn't worth the #11 pick in the draft.
But running back may be an even better example. Sure, Portis for Bailey and a #2 was a great deal, and we can plug in any serviceable guy in our backfield, but look the cost: every year we have to spend a relatively high draft pick or some free agent cash on a running back, all of which respesent draft picks and cash we can't spend on other needs (such as WR). And for some reason we give up on every effective pass rushing defensive end who comes through the team.
What I would like to see is the devotion of resources toward improvement, and not simply maintenance, of the team in the long-term. We simply shouldn't be addressing the same needs every year and need to do better than running in place.
i think you guys are both right. there is a lot of groupthink going on, and it is indicative in the stagnant, mediocre nature of the broncos teams these past couple of years.
like you guys, i'm tired of trying to squeak by with a budget running back, once again proving the adage that we can do this system with anyone.
well, maybe, but i'll tell you what, i really like when that someone isn't a has been, or a wreckless sperm donor, or.. whatever the hell else we're considering.
give cutler some protection, a real back that is a threat.
shanahan can only ride on his success for so long. the fact is, he hasn't done anything since elway, and has been just above average since.
however - your best point is - is there anyone out there better.
probably not.
but who knows, maybe the next john gruden is out there?
there was a time when i thought gary kubiak would've been a great follow up, but now i'm glad we don't have him. although, i am happy that he's being somewhat justified for taking mario williams over reggie bush.
but that's another matter.
yes, you got us two superbowls. but those were more of john elway, td, and sharpe's work than shanahan.
lets go with someone young and fresh.
wade phillips 2.0 anyone?