It sure sounds like John Elway understands what’s wrong with Foxball

Douglas Lee May 24, 2013 3:44 PM

SHANAHAN THROUGH THE EYES OF A PLAYER: JOHN ELWAY
espn.go.com

The other thing is he was very, very aggressive, and he wanted to win on the offensive and defensive side of the ball. A lot of coaches tried to sit back and win on defense. As a quarterback, why I liked Mike was he wanted to win it on the offensive side. If we needed a first down late in the game, we were going to be aggressive offensively rather than punting and putting the game in the defense’s hands. That’s something I admired about Mike, and it led to a lot of success when I played with him.

At least John Elway understands the sanctity of possession in the NFL. Does John Fox?

(h/t bmp210)

Doug is IAOFM’s resident newsman and spelling czar. Follow him on Twitter @IAOFM

I'm on that list! I feel so honored.

Posted by Orange_and_Blue on 2013-05-25 01:37:09

Does anyone else find it hilarious that ESPN inferred Art Shell was part of the Shanahan coaching tree?

Posted by broncosmontana on 2013-05-25 01:18:03

Let me add my 2 cents..

At the time John hired Fox there were not a lot of choices out there and IIRC one of the huge reasons was Players like to play for him he was a calm and deliberate guy that the locker room had liked him in the past a unifying HC.. Something that by all accounts, our team needed.. IIRC he was lauded for being a strong defensive minded HC as well as conservative in his play calling....

HE was simply the best for those reasons..

that said John added a wild card by going after Manning, I'd guess that Fox while happy to have him, had to have major spasms knowing that he was not his type of QB..

But so far so good MOSTLY Fox has adjusted to a faster paced Offense by allowing his underlings run it..

Posted by Lonestar47 on 2013-05-25 00:54:22

You forgot to mention Ivan's post where he describes the list he keeps of IAOFM commenters to skip. Well, I guess you'll be on that list now.

Posted by OutOfYourElement on 2013-05-24 23:42:53

Doug,

I've been posting on this site almost from the beginning. What about my posts have ever given you the opinion that I've never questioned or will never question anything anybody, obviously including you, does or says?

So, first of all, you would be a fool to assume that I'm "never going to question anything Fox does."

Secondly, I have not followed closely Fox's career. I do know that he got to the SB with a surprising collection of players and that IMO he was also pretty much undermined by ownership who decided that the team should go in another direction (and looked how that turned out).

I have to admit that I do believe that Fox "knows more about everything in football than" you do. I'm, at this point, happy that he's the coach of the Broncos and not you.

Frankly, what I tend to react negatively to is gratuitous criticism. The old saws:

"Those that can, do; those that can't, criticize;" and

"For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism";

are as appropriate on this site as in everyday life.

Doug, you provide a wealth of information for us and, for that, I'm deeply grateful.

IMO you seem to feel that this gives you the opportunity and the right (even obligation) to, not just insert, but to hammer opinions that are IMO not of the quality of your other contributions to this site.

I'll admit that these opinions are of various kinds and have a variety of consequences. Partially, my own opinions come into play.

For instance, some are offended by your TT critiques. You seem to regard him as an inept NFL QB, if not a fraud. Likewise, you seem to regard him as a poor representative of a Christian. Since, I tend to agree with you on both counts (he may also be a fraud as a Christian, about which I'm thought to know something), I'm not especially bothered by that discussion.

However, IMO, you abuse you position and influence when you attempt to set parameters for discussion about philosophy and strategy with regard to the Broncos' staff and the NFL owners as a group (as if that were even remotely a cohesive entity).

Terms like "conservative" and "aggressive" are connotatively loaded. And are frequently used to beggar argument. You may think that Fox should "go for it" more on fourth down, or use a lower percentage of running plays, or exploit more "hurry-up" in place of "no huddle", but to label the a lack of expectations on your part in any of these areas as "Conservative Foxball" already begs the conclusion without analyzing the components, evaluations and arguments. It frankly begs the question.
Or to blame the owners for every NFL blemish without an analysis of the alternatives and options does the same (do you really want an NFL run by governments - or, God forbid, unions. The Cap would be much lower because of the need to fund education or even politicians salaries). Or maybe your concept of the ideal situation is rich owners who consider team ownership as a playful tax write-off (which would kill the Broncos).
I guess, I mostly object to your using your position to insert assumptions that are unwarranted - i.e. "It Sure Sounds Like John Elway Understands What's Wrong with Foxball."
This is the apex IMO of annoying.

Posted by ivanthenotsobad on 2013-05-24 23:37:46

Yeah, but he only finished worse than 7-9 once in those nine years and that was with Rodney Peete, Jake Delhomme, Jimmy Claussen, Matt Moore and Tim Tebow under center for him. Given his prolonged exposure to those stiffs, it's a wonder he's not more conservative.

Posted by Yahmule on 2013-05-24 22:26:46

If a 13-4 record in 2012 indicates that Fox made all the right calls along the way, and knows more about everything in football than all of us, then we can all safely assume that you're never going to question anything he does, right? Just want to establish that.

Also, you are aware, Ivan, that Fox was two games over .500, with three winning seasons out of nine, prior to having Peyton Manning as his QB, right?

Posted by Douglas Lee on 2013-05-24 21:37:25

Bwahahaha...now that's some hilarity there. My comment is browbeating and yours isn't. I responded to your post with a different opinion. You then get all high horse on me. So then I defend myself, put you in your place, and I'm labeled as a brow beater? Man, you're opinion of yourself is something to be marveled at. I went through your post point, by point and stated my opinion. You haven't backed up a single argument of yours. Peyton and Fox had a conversation about going for it with 30 seconds left and they both said, let's kneel. I didn't realize you were on the sidelines during that game. You act like you know everything when whatever comes out of your mouth is just speculation. Peyton could very well have come up to Fox expecting to run a pass play and Fox said, "Let's kneel." Peyton could have then said, "Really? Don't you think we should give it a shot?" Fox: "No, let's kneel, I'm a scared little baby and my basic philosophy is conservative and I don't want to deviate from that." Peyton. "Ok, you're the coach." Because that's what I think they said. But Peyton isn't going to say as much in the presser after the game. He's going to say he supported his coach.

This is the site of Doug and Ted and Doc and TJ and whoever else they have that posts here. They are all pretty much on the same page philosophically. They may disagree on points here and there, but I don't think they'd be able to run this site together if they had major philosophical differences. I think that's why some of them left MHR and joined with each other in the first place. It's also why they like bash and tease on MHR. I like coming here because they think outside the box and they have a lot more relevant and informative content. I've also come to find their philosophy and political leanings align with mine for the most part. I liked Tebow when he played here and I sure appreciate what he did for us two years ago, but I feel, just like so many others, that he wasn't the long term answer for this team at QB. Sometimes I get annoyed with how much they bash him around here, but whatever, he's not a Bronco anymore, so no big deal.

You seem to think it's ok to start insulting people when it comes to differing opinions. Yes, I mean passive aggressive. When you say things like:

"And, like you, they are vociferous. But IMO unhelpful and unthoughtful."

and

"You can beat this horse for the rest of your life - and you and Doug probably will. That doesn't mean that IMO it gets any smarter or worth discussing."

and

"And you (and Doug) can attempt to brow-beat those of us who don't accept your over-simplifying of the philosophy and strategy of Fox's approach. I frankly find these caricatures rather sophomoric."

while these comments not directly insulting, they are kind of a backhanded way of saying someone is stupid and that their opinion doesn't matter. You're being passive, but at the same time, you're insulting. That's passive aggressive.

The people on this website have opinions...strong ones. When they express them, that doesn't mean they think they'll make a better coach than Fox or a better GM than Elway. We're fans, we nitpick our favorite teams every move. If someone thinks the Broncos did something that could have been done better, these guys will speak up. Then there's the Foxball debate. A lot of people think Fox is a bit too conservative. You don't. Fine. I guess you're right and the rest of us are wrong, huh? I give an opinion and it's sophomoric, while when you say something, it's concise and to the point, and obviously right. Get off your high horse buddy. I supported my original contention that Foxball is conservative and IN MY OPINION cost us the game. I have nowhere said I think I'm a better coach than Fox. Like I said before, I think he's a good coach, but not a great coach. He was brought in to stabilize this organisation after what's his bucket f-d everything all up.

There's a lot more I'd like to say, but I gotta go and you're not worth more of my time. Please don't respond to this or any other post that disagrees with you on this site and save us all your better than thou attitude.

GO BRONCOS!!!

Posted by Rollston Frangopoulos on 2013-05-24 21:28:04

You mean like he was pressured in OT and threw an INT. The flaw in your thinking, ivan, is that opportunity only presents itself every so often. The opportunity to move the ball in 30 seconds was there and no need to bomb it. Balt was likely going to play prevent defense and the ability to throw underneath would at least been seen in at least one attempt to pass the ball. Fox's judgement WAS too conservative and was a part of the defeat. To claim not to try something different is irresponsible and likely full of $***. He knows he did the team wrong in that instance in not seeing what was available. He basically mucked an Ace (PM) King (DT) because he didn't want to go all in on a non pair. He should have seen a flop and then made a decision.

Posted by Orange_and_Blue on 2013-05-24 21:07:13

My first reaction is that this is about a good of an example of "brow-beating" as is possible to display. Thank you, for helping to make my point.
I'm tired of trying to talk to people like you. Sorry! All you did was support you're original contention that you know better than Fox (although you attempt to disguise it to appear that you know better than me). I've never been accused in my life of being passive-aggressive, and it doesn't appear that you know what that term means. But to call someone "passive-aggressive" is a good "passive-aggressive" label to use to discredit an opponent..
More to the point, I'm comfortable with the way Fox calls a game. I like his philosophy. I think John Elway hired him because they thought alike. I'm not, like you and others who have lately been collecting on this site, eager to demonstrate that I know more than either John or PM.
If you're asserting that you think PM said, with 30 seconds to go, "Let's go for it", and Fox said,"NO!, Just take a knee", I would say that you're not especially thoughtful, Frankly, I would not be able to trust much of anything else you ever thought. (I suppose you would call me harsh to then label you a "nitwit".) It didn't and couldn't have happen that way. It was part of the decision making between coaches and players that meshes and I both accept it and agree with it.
At 13-3 I think I have a right to challenge anyone who thinks they could do better. You seem to think that you could do better, especially with 30 seconds to go (although your point is more about the 2 minute drill which is another topic, though you seem to think that it is appropriate here, I don't know why).
My overall point is, that this site has start to become something that distresses me. Doc continues to provide unbelievably thoughtful analysis, Doug is especially good at collecting and providing information that is thought helpful, Ted gives his take on stuff with interesting results. And everyone takes it and leaves it, which is what he expects.
But recently, an element has materialize that is no longer as thoughtful as has been the consistent quality of this site for some time.
It started with the TASPS (Tebow Adoration Society Police Squad), but IMO has continued with those who are determined to demonstrate (like McGeorge on MHR) that they know best how to run an NFL team (or league for that matter). They're dogmatic, brittle, and becoming increasingly ever-present.
They make pronouncements instead of calling for discussion.
"Foxball" is too conservative and thus to be "killed".
The "owners" are greedy and responsible for every ill in the NFL (and the world, apparentlyl) and should be "killed".
To a certain extent, Doug is responsible for it. I suspect he feels like it will increase the "hits". But I also sometimes feel that he thinks he has a right to direct the overall philosophy of the site, which he knows is something to which I object.
Mostly, I don't respond to his "philosophical" baiting anymore. Also mostly I don't participate in these discussions anymore. My TASP list has grown to include those I regard as basically not worth the time to engage. They are beyond learning. Frankly, Frang, you're on that list and I'll probably not respond to you again.
That I did it this time is simply because I've become frustrate that some on this site think that it is to be assumed that they know better than the coaches and that there is no legitimate counter to their assumptions.
To the extent that Doug fosters this mentality, he is to be largely held responsible.
.

Posted by ivanthenotsobad on 2013-05-24 20:42:08

Dude, you need to back off. I'm not insulting anyone, attacking anyone, or bullying anyone. You're passive aggressive insults need to be taken elsewhere. We're just discussing football. if someone has a different opinion about conservative play calling vs. being too risky, then that's a debate we're willing to have here and enjoy it. There are times for conservative play calling, and then there are times when you have a better chance by taking a risk. Let's analyze your comments:

I'm "unhelpful and unthoughtful." Well, I think that's just not true. I thought a lot about what I said. I just happen to have a different opinion. I guess your way to discuss football is to insult and get your opponent in a defensive position rather than to try and actually talk about the topic of conversation. It's a common tactic, albeit, a transparent one. If you think I'm blindly following Doug's viewpoint, think again. I thought the exact same thing when Fox had Peyton kneel to run out the clock. Bad move in my opinion.

"In game 2...blah, blah, blah...His MO is more deliberate, controlling the time and the clock, etc., etc." Do you really think Manning can't work in a 2 minute drill? Throw the ball ten yards out of bounds, stop the clock, set up for next play, read defense, snap the ball, run the ball, gain ten yards, call time out (or run out of bounds), set up play, read defense, snap the ball, long bomb, pass incomplete, clock stops, set up again, read defense, throw for 20 to middle field, call timeout, 5 seconds left, kick field goal. Sound like Manning? His game 2 was an off game. If I recall, he almost pulled us back into that game. What about Game 6 vs. San Diego? Down by 3 TD's and a field goal at the half? Gee, it was only the largest comeback on Monday night football. Was he flustered all game that day? No. I think I just shot that argument all to hell.

"... knee with 30 secs left, regroup, and play PM ball in OT which gives the best chance for winning." Ok, so TRYING to get within field goal range with 30 seconds left isn't giving our team the best chance to win? If you have two opportunities to win a game, but the 1st one isn't that great of an opportunity let's just throw it out and not even try. Sounds like a winning mentality to me. Truth is, Fox got gun shy because Manning threw an interception for a TD in the 1st quarter and Prater missed a FG at the end of the 2nd giving the ravens good field position to score again. He was afraid something like that would happen again, but the reality is, those things don't happen very often, especially with Manning. He let his fears control his game plan. That is bad coaching.

"That it didn't result in a win is no assurance that a 30 second frantic drive would have done anything but jeopardize the game earlier." THERE'S ONLY 30 SECONDS LEFT IN THE GAME!!! How could that jeopardize the game earlier? You play to win, or you don't. If a frantic play had resulted in an interception at the Ravens 20 yard line, would they have just kneeled on the ball? Who knows, but we DEFINITELY wouldn't be worse off in that position than going into overtime because the game would still be tied. Maybe the Ravens then have the ball with 20 seconds left. So what. They're going to do what we couldn't? I'd rather try to win the game in that situation and cause a turnover, than not do anything go into overtime where one bad play even then could cost us the game. You're play calling strategy reeks of fear.

"You can beat this horse for the rest of your life - and you and Doug probably will. That doesn't mean that IMO it gets any smarter or worth discussing" Tell you what, don't post anything because it's not worth discussing. Stay out of the conversation if it's not worth discussing. This is a fan football site. We're going to discuss things and if they bother you, then just don't bother coming because it seems like all you want to do is grovel at the feet of John Fox. I like Fox as a Coach, but he'll never be grouped in with the likes of Jimmy Johnson, Tom Landry, Don Shula, Bill Walsh, etc. because hes' not an innovator. He's a players coach. He's conservative by nature and while that will win a lot of games, it can cost you the important ones against the better teams come playoff time.

"And you (and Doug) can attempt to brow-beat those of us who don't accept your over-simplifying of the philosophy and strategy of Fox's approach. I frankly find these caricatures rather sophomoric. But I guess, maybe this is just MHR junior to some."

If you don't like it, don't read it, but there's no need for insults. Maybe you consider this brow beating, but I consider it honest to goodness football discussion. If you could present some valid arguments for Fox's conservative play calling, then by all means do so and I'll concede your point. I myself said that there is a time for conservative play calling, but IMO that wasn't one of them. But by resorting to name calling insults, you're devolving to the very type of message board conversations you despise over at MHR.

So please, if you want to discuss football, let's discuss football. Opinions will vary. That doesn't mean any one of us is wrong or "sophomoric" or "unhelpful" or " unthoughtful" or "smarter" or are "brow-beat"ing.

Posted by Rollston Frangopoulos on 2013-05-24 19:42:45

Great critique "My critique of Fox was that he was already close to that line on the conservative side of the spectrum and he became even more conservative in the playoffs."

There is a spectrum in the middle thats acceptable but Fox is on brink and beyond one of the ends. I doubt they can win a SB with him at the helm. The can go 16-0 in regular season and he will put the breaks on when it counts. Stop the team from going over the finish line. Defensive driver extremist.

Posted by SwaZ on 2013-05-24 19:11:08

So you're saying there's a chance!!

Posted by Broncologist on 2013-05-24 18:52:56

Here's is where my regard for PM is apparently higher than others. I think (would bet on it) that PMs ability to win a game is less than 50% (less than 20%) when pressured into a 30 second window to use 3 (at most 5) plays to move down the field and get into position to score without some glitch.
But I also believe (apparently as most others do not) that given a controlled situation in which to move the ball with no time constraints, PM can score much higher than 50% of the time - I'll not quibble about the 90% figure, but also not withdraw it.

Posted by ivanthenotsobad on 2013-05-24 18:50:11

I thought you were saying that there were two options for Fox to choose at the end of the Baltimore game. (a) take a knee or (b) become so aggressive that it makes Manning uncomfortable and significantly more likely to make a mistake. I am offering a third option - be semi aggressive (similar to a normal two minute drill) and hope to get lucky. I firmly believe that with a QB like Manning you can play things in a way that you are more likely to get lucky and hit a big play than you are to be unlucky and make a mistake that loses the game. I think that over his career Manning has shown himself to to be pretty effective in 2 minute drills and I don't think we should read too much into his performance in week 2 when he was still knocking the rust off after an 18 month layoff and adjusting to a new system with new teammates. In the worst case (and the vast majority of the time) you go into overtime, but at least you know you tried.

I also don't understand why you think Fox's strategy wins us that game 90% of the time. That number is far too high a proabability for any team entering overtime in a playoff game, no matter how good their home field advantage may be.

Posted by MattR on 2013-05-24 17:49:03

Do you really think that you know better how to win games than Fox.
Sorry! I don't.

Posted by ivanthenotsobad on 2013-05-24 17:27:24

I don't I know what I might be falsely presenting. Fox admitted that, in a similar circumstance, he would make the same decision. And I would applaud him. And more often than not we would win (perhaps 90% of the time).
IMO that's winning football and mentality. And that's why Fox and Smith win.l

Posted by ivanthenotsobad on 2013-05-24 17:22:05

I think you are falsely presenting this as a binary decision - either take a knee or go balls to the wall trying to score in the last 30 seconds. There is the middle ground of being semi-aggressive and trying to improve field position without taking any major chances. You hope for a mistake from the other team rather than making a mistake yourself trying to force things.

Posted by MattR on 2013-05-24 17:00:10

I see a good analogy between coaching and poker styles. If you look at the conservative-aggressive specturm, there is no ideal spot that guarantees the best results. Instead I think there is a range that can bring success, but you can also go too far in either direction to the point that it becomes counterproductive and harmful. My critique of Fox was that he was already close to that line on the conservative side of the spectrum and he became even more conservative in the playoffs.

Posted by MattR on 2013-05-24 16:56:37

Amen brother yoi are singing to part of the choir.

I know that many want rthe pedal to the medal all the time but sometimes it is patience that wins games. If we have a decent lead and can gain yardage on EACH possession change one of two things happens Manning gets a shorter field each exchange or we nail them inside their ten with a punt and then it is MILLER TIME.. Let all the dogs loose at getting the QB either before he throws or force him to put up a lame duck.

Sometimes you just have to let it all hang out..

This year should be our best ever Defense since and maybe even including the Orange Crush.

Manning should be great and IF our ST are as good or better than last year well all should be good.

BTW another reason tanahan did not want to punt mostly our ST were B A D. How many run back for scores on them?

Posted by Lonestar47 on 2013-05-24 16:54:33

Everything I've seen from Doug about Foxball would support you first statement, but not everything from this site.
Doug seems to be able to bring out the worst in those who think they know better than Fox how to win. And, like you, they are vociferous. But IMO unhelpful and unthoughtful.
In game two it was adequately and graphically demonstrated that PM's major weakness was that, when pressured or acting too quickly he could make mistakes - three interceptions. His MO is more deliberate, controlling the time and the clock and making as much use of "reads" of the defenses strategy as possible.
IMO the right call was to take the knee with 30 secs left, regroup, and play PM ball in OT which gives the best chance for winning.
Frantic 30 second dramatics were never and are not now PM's strong suit - only in the minds of pundits.
That it didn't result in a win is no assurance that a 30 second frantic drive would have done anything but jeopardize the game earlier.
That's based on what everyone could see of Manning ball for the whole year.
You can beat this horse for the rest of your life - and you and Doug probably will. That doesn't mean that IMO it gets any smarter or worth discussing.
But I guess, maybe this is just MHR junior to some.

Posted by ivanthenotsobad on 2013-05-24 16:51:42

iPad/disqus freeze

Can throw him.

Posted by Lonestar47 on 2013-05-24 16:47:01

Frankly does anyone REALLY think tanahan had any confidence in most of his defenses?

For the most part they played decent MOST of the time but in crunch time they were a sieve.

How many times over his decade plus here did we have to have a late fourth quarter comeback (John lead the NFL in this) and Jake was not far behind.

We would get a 3 score lead and go into prevent defense and the offense would coast till they had to turn it on again. Game after game especially that last decade without John his teams faded in the late season after winning big the first 6-8 games.

Sorry buy I really do not believe that mikey had any confidence in his D. It was based on fast LBs decent to better safeties and a corner with a DL that was not either big enough or talented to stop talented offenses or any semblance of a running game.

Do not beleive that any farther than I can

Posted by Lonestar47 on 2013-05-24 16:46:34

I don't see how you come up with that interpretation. Everything I've seen from this site regarding how Fox coaches is that he's too conservative.

Also, what good is a 13-3 record if in the playoffs you decide to run out the clock with 30+ seconds left to the half? You've got Peyton Manning for Christ's sake. It's the playoffs for cryin' out loud. You should be going for the jugular every chance you get because if you don't...well, we all know what happened.

Fox is conservative by nature and it cost us. He needs to let his offense open it up to crush and demoralize every team we play. If we're up 30-7 in a midseason game with a quarter of football left, I say we should win 44-7. If it's the playoffs, and we're up 20-7 with 45 sec on the clock at the half, we should drive down, score a TD AND go for 2.

Posted by Rollston Frangopoulos on 2013-05-24 16:41:54

Doug,
A little surprised that you posted this in this way after a series of articles that pretty much demonstrated that "aggressive" coaches were losers and that two of the so-called "conservative" coaches had 13-3 records last year.
This is a saw that has become not old so much as trite, misleading, and ego-serving (which you'll almost certainly see in the comments - again).
If you intend to indicate that there is a split between Fox and Elway (or PM for that matter) in philosophy or instincts, you've failed.
If you intend to indicate that you can always rouse nitwits to think they know better how to win games (better than 13-3 for God's sake) you will probably succeed, but what's the point. This isn't MHR.

Posted by ivanthenotsobad on 2013-05-24 16:32:09

Can I have an amen?!!!

This needs to be on the jumbo-tron during every home game.
Maybe we can pitch in for billboard space for away games.
Someone should have a sound loop playing in the facility throughout camp.
It should be somehow introduced subliminally into Fox's cranium.

I may be going a bit overboard, but.....
That's Peyton Freaking Manning behind center, Mr. Fox!!!!!
Now, let's get with the program, here.

The author of these words is your boss.

Posted by jayrockstone on 2013-05-24 16:03:42

In an interesting tangent, it may well have been Shanny's same experiences with the frustrations of Reevesball that propelled him towards his more freewheeling style.

Posted by BottomfedBuddha on 2013-05-24 15:54:07

As someone who saw how hard it was to battle through his own version of Foxball... Reevesball.... I'd expect JE to be one of the staunchest proponents of winning games with OFFENSE of any executive in the NFL!

Posted by BottomfedBuddha on 2013-05-24 15:50:59

It sure sounds like John Elway understands what’s wrong with Foxball

Offseason 2013 Features

A post-draft look at the Broncos’ cap situation

Denver Broncos 2013 undrafted free agent signings

Denver Broncos 2013 free agency tracker

Denver Broncos 2013 draft choice tracker

All Draft Features