The head coach search/offseason so far

[FiniteMan!]

Elway had a higher completion percentage in college because college defenses usually aren't as good as those in the NFL. Many QBs go through this.

Not always true. College football has changed a lot over the last 30 years. A large portion of collegiate teams were running wishbone and I formation offenses in the old days. Statistically, you might find that a lot of player's completion percentages went up in the pros.

Elway completed 54.7% under Reeves and 58.6% under Shanahan. Reeves did coach Elway during his early years in which most young QBs completed a low number of passes. Shanahan had Elway as an experienced vet.

With respect, this is just using statistics to ***** an arguement. You left out the two years elway played under Wade Phillips. Let's look at the whole picture.

In Elway's first TEN seasons spent under reeves he completed 54.7% of his passes for an average of 3021 yards per season, an average of 6.96 yards per catch, an average of 16 TDs, 16 INTs, and 8 Fumbles per season.

In Elway's next 2 seasons under Wade Phillips, Elway completed 62.7% of his passes for an average of 3760 yards per season, an average of 7.19 yards per catch, an average of 20.5 TDs, 10 INTs, and 9.5 Fumbles per season. His completion percentage went from 55.1% in Reeves last season to a career high 63.2% in Phillip's first. His TDs (10), Ints (17), and Fumbles (12) also improved after the coaching change to 25 TDS, 10 INTs, and 8 Fumbles.

In Elway's last 4 seasons under shanahan, Elway completed 58.6% of his passes for an average of 3434 yards per season, an average of 7 yards per catch, an average of 25.25 TDs, 12.25 INTs, and 8.25 Fumbles per season.

In Elway's last 6 seasons overall, Elway completed 60.0% of his passes for an average of 3543 yards per season, an average of 7.30 yards per catch, an average of 23.7 TDs, 11.5 INTs, and 8.7 Fumbles per season.

For a 10 year vet to suddenly shoot up 8% in completion percentage suggests the scheme and our supporting staff of the previous coach was not what the next coach offerred.

Reeves didn't refuse to bring in a 1000 yard back. Why would he? That statement doesn't make sense. He also wasn't the GM and he proved in New York and Atlanta that he likes a strong running game. Denver tried improving the running game, but could not.

I think reeves was relatively satisfied with Sammy Winder and didn't push the issue. IMO winder was a change of pace back filling a feature back role. IMO he was incapable of delivering the kind of running attack they needed; incapable of picking up the tough yards. And I don't just mean to just throw him under the bus. Their OL was not very physical. To me, that is on Reeves. He may not have "bought the groceries", but I think every NFL coach has a huge part in making the team's shopping lists each off-season. For him not to identify those problems puts a good chunk of the blame on him. IMO.

They had Sammy Winder early in Elway's career and he had 1153 yards in 1984.

Sammy Winder was their featured back for most of Elway's early career.

year rsh att yards ave TDs recp yds ave TDs INT
1982 67 259 3.9 1 11 83 7.5 0 1
1983 196 757 3.9 3 23 150 6.5 0 7
1984 296 1,153 3.9 4 44 288 6.5 2 5
1985 199 714 3.6 8 31 197 6.4 0 4
1986 240 789 3.3 9 26 171 6.6 5 2
1987 196 741 3.8 6 14 74 5.3 1 5
1988 149 543 3.6 4 17 103 6.1 1 1
1989 110 351 3.2 2 14 91 6.5 0 1
1990 42 120 2.9 2 17 145 8.5 0 2

Check out those sickly yard per rush and TD numbers...

They traded for 1000 yard back Tony Dorsett.

This was a good idea and way overdue. Dorsett might have squeaked out 1-3 1000 yard seasons left in him when they got him in 1988 but his injury killed that plan. He had clearly lost a good bit by 1987, even though I think he still might have had 2000-3000 more yards of feature back in him.

They drafted Bobby Humphey who started out well with 1151 yards as a rookie in 1989 and 1202 yards in 1990. Injuries pretty much ended his career after that when he played only 4 games in 1991 and then went to Miami for one season.

I thought they finally got things right when they drafted Humphrey. I suspect attitude and work ethic had as much to do with his decline as injuries though. Still he was the kind of powerful runner they needed to pick up first downs vs. a good defense in the early superbowl years.

I think their team was too emotionally brittle from the first two SB drubbings by time they acquired him. Once SF got up on them they couldn't compete and broke down.

They managed to get 1037 yards out of Gaston Green in 1991.

To me, he was a more explosive version of Winder. He gave the illusion of a strong running game, but IMO was not the powerful runner you need when push comes to shove and you need 2 yards for a 1st.

Reeves didn't succeed in getting a single running back to be the consitent rushing threat behind Elway, but it wasn't because he refused to do so. Sometimes things just don't work out.

I disagree. I think Denver under reeves didn't see it as a priority until they got smacked around in the superbowl a few times because they couldn't control the clock at all.

Also, those Superbowl Broncos' teams were good for the AFC, but they just were not as good as the NFC teams they faced. The NFC was easily the dominant conference. If Cleveland would have managed to beat the Broncos, the Browns would have then gone on to get slaughtered in the Superbowl.

I am going to disagree here, but mostly with the word "slaughtered". The Browns had a very strong rushing attack in 86 and 87 and a good defense and neither the Giants or the Commanders would have controlled the clock on them the way those two teams did on the bronchos. I think the browns would have been more similar to Cincinnati's superbowl performances. Superbowls tend to be blowouts with one team controlling the clock, or close games that can go either way. I don't disagree that the browns would likely have lost as well to both teams, but I think the odds are the games would have been of the close variety, and with Bernie Kosar at his prime...well, I wouldn't have totally counted them out.

 

[silverbear]

I was ready for Jerry to dump Parcells all season until the emergence of Romo. When Romo emerged, I still thought Parcells should just finish out the year. He was clearly burnt. Then Romo started getting very sloppy with the ball. It occurred to me that we should bring Parcells back for one more year to ensure we had a head coach who could get and hold Romo's attention, and so our staff, scheme, and playbook would remain unchanged at this early stage of Romo's development.

Mercy, and I thought *I* wrote long posts... LOL...

 

[silverbear]

My first choice was Rivera for head coach. However I heard from my "sources" (here and dallascowobys.com) that Jerry wanted a veteran guy where he knew what he was getting instead of a young guy who might be hit or miss. So I figured with what I've seen Wade Phillips do in San Diego and the decent job he did in Buffalo **Remember he was fired for not firing another coach, not so much his teams play** he'd be the best canidate to lead this defence.

I still am praying at night that Norv won't get the job, and I'll leave it at that since everything you said about him was spot on.

When I first heard Dan Reeves wanted the job I was totally against it. I thought he just wasn't right of the job. Then Jerry went and hired Jason Garrett, in hopes that he could find a coach that would groom him into being the next HC for the Boys. My thoughts after hearing this was immediatly Reeves. I think if Jerry is using the plan of grooming Garrett or maybe Singletary into being the next coach then Dan Reeves would be the best choice. He's had success with a few teams, he's a firey guy and he is just a good coach to bring in for a few years at the most.

Also, small side note: Bowles who Jerry interviewed already fullfilled our "Rooney Rule" obligation. Singletary was the second minority interviewed. However, I did read somewhere that maybe the Commish called jerry and asked him to interview somebody not already on staff to stay true to the Rooney Rule, but that was conjecture on the guys part I believe. I've heard more reports say that Bowles' interview did satisfy the rule completely.

When queried about that, the league office said the Bowles interview DID satsify the requirements of the Rooney Rule...