What's your take on our coaching?

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

The constant addition of band aids would only mask the fact that the D was in desperate need of long-term impact players to maintain its previous level of [imo, overrated] play. And these bandaids themselves might have sucked enough to expose these flaws on the D anyway.

Transition or no transition, the D was most certainly not in a state that it could be neglected for a couple years and be expected to perform at a highly level. No SOLB, aging line, suspect FS, okay OLB.

Not only that, we were not in good position to draft offensive players. 2010's 2nd round had very few offensive players taken during that round. Had we kept that pick, the pick ought to have went to a defensive player, i.e Lamarr Houston or Nate Allen.

Adding band aids to a terrible offense didn't help either, and Shanahan was brought in to fix the defense. Speaking of defense, with that 2nd rounder, MS could have picked up T. Cody and solve our NT hole for years to come (he is now the starting NT for the Ravens). And actually, he could have traded down to get him, and acquire more picks in the process.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Adding band aids to a terrible offense didn't help either, and Shanahan was brought in to fix the defense. Speaking of defense, with that 2nd rounder, MS could have picked up T. Cody and solve our NT hole for years to come (he is now the starting NT for the Ravens). And actually, he could have traded down to get him, and acquire more picks in the process.

I was thinking the same thing about Navarro Bowman instead of Cody. With Bowman instead of McIntosh/Perry Riley, we'd have something close to the league's best defense right now. Who knows what our scouting opinion was of him, but Riley's been worthless.

Or even Daryl Washington of Arizona. Last draft was a great year for 3-4 ILBs. And we got Perry Riley.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Adding band aids to a terrible offense didn't help either, and Shanahan was brought in to fix the defense. Speaking of defense, with that 2nd rounder, MS could have picked up T. Cody and solve our NT hole for years to come (he is now the starting NT for the Ravens). And actually, he could have traded down to get him, and acquire more picks in the process.

Shanahan was taken in to build a winner. His mistake in his first year was picking up a bunch of lemons(a used car with problems is defined as a lemon) and trying to build something with them.

His reputation was built on his stellar offenses, not his defensive decisions. In fact, even this year's defense was well beyond my expectations when he was first hired since the Broncos' D in 2008 was purely awful. He has done pretty well this season given his poor reputation on that side of the ball(now maybe Allen helped, but w/e). And I believe we are close to establishing something really good on D. We just need a NT and ILBs(we would have needed a DT and maybe 3 LBs if we were still running a 4-3 at this juncture).

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

Shanahan was taken in to build a winner. His mistake in his first year was picking up a bunch of lemons(a used car with problems is defined as a lemon) and trying to build something with them.

His reputation was built on his stellar offenses, not his defensive decisions. In fact, even this year's defense was well beyond my expectations when he was first hired since the Broncos' D in 2008 was purely awful. He has done pretty well this season given his poor reputation on that side of the ball(now maybe Allen helped, but w/e). And I believe we are close to establishing something really good on D. We just need a NT and ILBs(we would have needed a DT and maybe 3 LBs if we were still running a 4-3 at this juncture).

That's...just...nonsense. Remember had we built the defense around AH (before all the drama) the DL situation was sublime. AC next to AH was amazing. Orakpo could have held down SAM or even become the LDE and then Rocky would be here as WIL regardless. The only absolute need to round out the 4-3 was a legit FS.

More importantly...this is an absurd debate the opportunity cost of blowing up the defense is painfully obvious.

Bottome line is Mike is a megalomaniac and will force the "system" whatever it happens to be on the roster regardless of opportunity cost, scheme fit etc.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by The Goat

That's...just...nonsense. Remember had we built the defense around AH (before all the drama) the DL situation was sublime. AC next to AH was amazing. Orakpo could have held down SAM or even become the LDE and then Rocky would be here as WIL regardless. The only absolute need to round out the 4-3 was a legit FS.

More importantly...this is an absurd debate the opportunity cost of blowing up the defense is painfully obvious.

Bottome line is Mike is a megalomaniac and will force the "system" whatever it happens to be on the roster regardless of opportunity cost, scheme fit etc.

Admittedly, I worded that badly. I made it sound like we were set in the secondary and depthwise
The point is, establish the front 7, and team can at least bear the poorness of the secondary behind them with a punishing pass rush and an impenetrable run defense. NT is the key to that, and we need a more prototypical NT to complement Cofield. Rocky and Fletch might need successors in the near future, hence the need for ILBs.

You're use of opportunity cost confuses me. If the opportunity cost of our transition was to stay with the 4-3, we have to look at the production(i.e sacks, turnovers, pressures, coverage) of the various schemes(it would have been new anyway) not just in the short term, where the where one of the inputs(labor, capital) are fixed, but in the long term, where the any input can be modified. The switch to the 3-4 could be considered a very costly investment of sorts(similar to an investment in a new plant, i.e new technology), except poor play is the negative outcome instead of the loss of money. However, if this investment would then help reach a level of productivity well past the old levels, then there is certainly a case to be made for making such an investment.

Also, there is another alternative that could have been the best one(the opportunity cost), which is making a more gradual transition to the 3-4.