When VJ gets fired

[broncofan48]

31 minutes ago, champ11 said:

We need a progressive offensive mind.

We deserve to at least watch fun football even if we are gonna be trash

Progressive coach, plus upgrade at QB, with Sanders, Sutton, Hamilton, Lindsay, & Freeman that could be a very entertaining offense to watch

[AKRNA]

I might have a different take than most here, probably comes from the '60's when we swapped coaches non-stop. 

I don't think VJ is the answer at all, just another part of the problem that needs to be corrected. That said,' what benefits exactly do we achieve by firing him now?

Personally, I can't think of one. I can think of lots of reasons to let him finish out the season though, mostly to send a message to future coaching candidates that they won't be on a "hot seat" before they can do their job. Our coaching hunt will be tough enough, aging roster, no QB, cap hell for two years........................ 

Why would we want to put a coaching candidate on notice that he's on a short leash to produce or he'll be gone when his job will already be tough enough. Looks to me like a several year rebuild. I'd hate to see us going through multile HC changes in that time.

 

[champ11]

11 minutes ago, AKRNA said:

I might have a different take than most here, probably comes from the '60's when we swapped coaches non-stop. 

I don't think VJ is the answer at all, just another part of the problem that needs to be corrected. That said,' what benefits exactly do we achieve by firing him now?

Personally, I can't think of one. I can think of lots of reasons to let him finish out the season though, mostly to send a message to future coaching candidates that they won't be on a "hot seat" before they can do their job. Our coaching hunt will be tough enough, aging roster, no QB, cap hell for two years........................ 

Why would we want to put a coaching candidate on notice that he's on a short leash to produce or he'll be gone when his job will already be tough enough. Looks to me like a several year rebuild. I'd hate to see us going through multile HC changes in that time.

 

Yeah I had a similar argument related to keeping Joseph this past offseason. I kind of agree because the reality is canning Joseph isn't going to fix much. It will probably just be to make the fans happy....which is probably more important than we would think. 

At the end of the day, there are only 30 head coaching opportunities available, so most candidates aren't going to turn down a job. The key is we want to be a top 1-3 destination for coaches this offseason and I'm not sure how much firing Vance would effect that. It's a good thought though. 

[broncofan48]

9 minutes ago, AKRNA said:

I might have a different take than most here, probably comes from the '60's when we swapped coaches non-stop. 

I don't think VJ is the answer at all, just another part of the problem that needs to be corrected. That said,' what benefits exactly do we achieve by firing him now?

Personally, I can't think of one. I can think of lots of reasons to let him finish out the season though, mostly to send a message to future coaching candidates that they won't be on a "hot seat" before they can do their job. Our coaching hunt will be tough enough, aging roster, no QB, cap hell for two years........................ 

Why would we want to put a coaching candidate on notice that he's on a short leash to produce or he'll be gone when his job will already be tough enough. Looks to me like a several year rebuild. I'd hate to see us going through multile HC changes in that time.

 

I think the only reason Elway didn’t fire Vance to start with was the coach killer rep.  

That said the mentality of performing your job is a good one for the entire culture of the organization.  Besides not making a change puts the onus on Elway as the team continues to lose. A coaching change at least buys him another chance to find a coach and QB

[AKRNA]

24 minutes ago, champ11 said:

Yeah I had a similar argument related to keeping Joseph this past offseason. I kind of agree because the reality is canning Joseph isn't going to fix much. It will probably just be to make the fans happy....which is probably more important than we would think. 

At the end of the day, there are only 30 head coaching opportunities available, so most candidates aren't going to turn down a job. The key is we want to be a top 1-3 destination for coaches this offseason and I'm not sure how much firing Vance would effect that. It's a good thought though. 

You're right, canning VJ won't fix anything. He's also not the only problem. I'd prefer it if they take a longer term approach, start a detailed coaching and roster analysis immediately and come up with a long term plan. Let VJ finish out the year, fire him the Monday after our last game, and start the rebuild process. I'd say hold off on the roster purge until we've got our new coach in place with a 4 year contract.

Just my opinion. Players very rarely get cut during the season, coaches shouldn't either.

[Broncofan]

1 hour ago, AKRNA said:

You're right, canning VJ won't fix anything. He's also not the only problem. I'd prefer it if they take a longer term approach, start a detailed coaching and roster analysis immediately and come up with a long term plan. Let VJ finish out the year, fire him the Monday after our last game, and start the rebuild process. I'd say hold off on the roster purge until we've got our new coach in place with a 4 year contract.

Just my opinion. Players very rarely get cut during the season, coaches shouldn't either.

I think we all know VJ's a dead man walking.   The problem nowadays is that once players know it, the risk of guys quitting on the team goes up 100x in today's game.   It's not like how it used to be in that regard.  Now, an even worse scenario is that if you let the players quit, and keep the status quo, they take the message home the status quo is OK.    Still, I personally hold players just as accountable there, they're paid to put in their best effort each game, each practice, no excuses.  But nowadays, the risk is still there. 

I agree that firing VJ doesn't actually solve much right away.   I actually don't mind if we lost every single game from here to end of season - because we need to draft so much talent, earlier picks matter more.  Having VJ would probably help us achieve that goal over Kubiak, TBH.   I would have zero problem if we waited until end-of-season to fire VJ - but not if keeping VJ compromised our vision to build for the future in the 2018 game-planning and decisions on who we use in-game.  THAT is the one big problem with keeping VJ - he'll be making decisions to try and save his job - when helping the org think long-term should be his #1 goal.   That's the one reason on why coaches get fired in-season (vs. players) that I totally get for rebuilding teams.

Sitting McGovern for Max Garcia was a prime example of job-saving decision-making that's awful in the long-term.   Garcia we know has no future with our team, all we did was send the message to McGovern that hey, you struggle one game, and you're benched.  That's an awful message, when he's been the 2nd best OL on our team.   But as @BroncoBruin pointed out in the GD thread, it was a decision because he was the only guy with an obvious replacement that didn't terrify everyone (although it should have).     

At some point, we probably will need to see if Chad Kelly can be anything - but it's no doubt not now, because Kelly, as much as he probably has loads more ceiling than Keenum, probably has a ton of rookie warts he's getting rid of (yes, he's in his 2nd year, but on IR-no return, zero practice time allowed, so it's his rookie learning curve now).    A coach fighting for his job won't even dream of putting Kelly in - when in the long-term, we're better off using Kelly at some point, and getting many games in (at least 4+) to see if he's got anything there to build on for 2019.   A win-now coach won't do that, however.  And many other decisions that are best long-term for the team, but bad in the short-term for the coach.

Elway's decision to try and win-now with Keenum over going with a rookie QB is another example, but that's at least on Elway, VJ has nothing to do with that.   But the problem with keeping a lame-duck coach still remains that that guy's goals don't match the team's long-term goals, and their decisions often stunt future growth.  IMO that's the main reason to part ways, moreso than losing the players, although that's often the reason cited the most nowadays.   

[AKRNA]

1 hour ago, Broncofan said:

I think we all know VJ's a dead man walking.   The problem nowadays is that once players know it, the risk of guys quitting on the team goes up 100x in today's game.   It's not like how it used to be in that regard.  Now, an even worse scenario is that if you let the players quit, and keep the status quo, they take the message home the status quo is OK.    Still, I personally hold players just as accountable there, they're paid to put in their best effort each game, each practice, no excuses.  But nowadays, the risk is still there. 

I agree that firing VJ doesn't actually solve much right away.   I actually don't mind if we lost every single game from here to end of season - because we need to draft so much talent, earlier picks matter more.  Having VJ would probably help us achieve that goal over Kubiak, TBH.   I would have zero problem if we waited until end-of-season to fire VJ - but not if keeping VJ compromised our vision to build for the future in the 2018 game-planning and decisions on who we use in-game.  THAT is the one big problem with keeping VJ - he'll be making decisions to try and save his job - when helping the org think long-term should be his #1 goal.   That's the one reason on why coaches get fired in-season (vs. players) that I totally get for rebuilding teams.

Sitting McGovern for Max Garcia was a prime example of job-saving decision-making that's awful in the long-term.   Garcia we know has no future with our team, all we did was send the message to McGovern that hey, you struggle one game, and you're benched.  That's an awful message, when he's been the 2nd best OL on our team.   But as @BroncoBruin pointed out in the GD thread, it was a decision because he was the only guy with an obvious replacement that didn't terrify everyone (although it should have).     

At some point, we probably will need to see if Chad Kelly can be anything - but it's no doubt not now, because Kelly, as much as he probably has loads more ceiling than Keenum, probably has a ton of rookie warts he's getting rid of (yes, he's in his 2nd year, but on IR-no return, zero practice time allowed, so it's his rookie learning curve now).    A coach fighting for his job won't even dream of putting Kelly in - when in the long-term, we're better off using Kelly at some point, and getting many games in (at least 4+) to see if he's got anything there to build on for 2019.   A win-now coach won't do that, however.  And many other decisions that are best long-term for the team, but bad in the short-term for the coach.

Elway's decision to try and win-now with Keenum over going with a rookie QB is another example, but that's at least on Elway, VJ has nothing to do with that.   But the problem with keeping a lame-duck coach still remains that that guy's goals don't match the team's long-term goals, and their decisions often stunt future growth.  IMO that's the main reason to part ways, moreso than losing the players, although that's often the reason cited the most nowadays.   

If people weren't terrified of Max starting they've never watched him. He's really poor at LG and a disaster at RG.

As far as guys not wanting to play, that's on them and should be responded to with immediate benchings, etc. That's another problem we need to fix. At times I get the impression the inmates are running the asylum.

I'd assume at the bye week we'll be eliminated from contention, if not mathematically then logically. Elway could convey that to VJ and have him change with an eye on the future.. Give new players more of a shot, see what Sam Jones can do, march out Kelly next time Case gets groggy. Re-signing Paradis and extending Harris would give the players all the message they need. Basically, personnel evaluation. 

Anyway, I've been through this a lot with this franchise and mid year benchings rarely pan out. 

[BroncoBruin]

Firing VJ mid-season would be more about throwing a bone to a fanbase that is sick of everything. We've reached the transition from anger to apathy now. A lot of no-shows for the Rams game, really tough look for one of the better home field advantages in the league. 

[Broncofan]

2 hours ago, AKRNA said:

If people weren't terrified of Max starting they've never watched him. He's really poor at LG and a disaster at RG.

As far as guys not wanting to play, that's on them and should be responded to with immediate benchings, etc. That's another problem we need to fix. At times I get the impression the inmates are running the asylum.

I'd assume at the bye week we'll be eliminated from contention, if not mathematically then logically. Elway could convey that to VJ and have him change with an eye on the future.. Give new players more of a shot, see what Sam Jones can do, march out Kelly next time Case gets groggy. Re-signing Paradis and extending Harris would give the players all the message they need. Basically, personnel evaluation. 

Anyway, I've been through this a lot with this franchise and mid year benchings rarely pan out. 

I'm not a fan of the "losing the players" angle, to be upfront.   I agree that the players are paid professionals, just show up and do your job (yes I'm borrowing it from BB & TB12).   But it's a different era we live in than the 60's/70's/even 80's...

The problem with telling VJ to look to the future...I don't know that he would know what that looks like.  I mean, they tried to convey that performance matters...and they benched their 2nd best OL.  And cut the punter.    As if that was the problem.     

They need to get Jewell out on the field and sit Todd Davis (or Marshall, both are just not playing well, but frankly from an optics perspective, Davis is the one who needs the biggest message sent - again yesterday he starts pointing at others...when he was the one blowing assignments.  AWFUL look for a supposed captain).     

On O, a DT trade just for salary relief would be a plus long-term, since the $ saved would be really useful (I have nothing but love for DT's tenure, even though he wasn't a true alpha, but salary relief and getting younger matters most), and it would get Sanders, Sutton & Hamilton on the field.   They've already said Sam Jones will now be a gameday active, as he's the backup G.  No idea if he can work out, but it's time to find out. 

Re: bye week timing to cut bait, we need to cut bait sooner - simply because the Oct. 30 trade deadline will have passed by then.   If there's any market, we should look to deal not just DT, but Shane Ray and Barrett.  Ray & Barrett are UDFA's, and as the position is in demand, but their play hasn't warranted mega-$ contracts, they won't get big comp picks back for us (but the position is in enough demand that will still be too pricey for us to retain, as we've seen unless you are special, 2nd contracts rarely work out at market prices).    Given you can lose comp picks if you spend on FA's (not just who you lose), and you have to wait an extra year, if we can get even a 5th for either Ray/Barrett, it's a win (a year earlier is 1 round increase in value, and likely they only get end-of-4th/end-of-5th picks at best).    That would also allow us to activate Cravens when he's due to come back from IR, and we can also bring in everyone's other favorite UDFA, Jeff Holland, off the PS - because if we're a future-only team, it's time to get all the kids some real PT this year.   Given the bye comes 10 days after the trading deadline, we need to commit sooner - so losing to ARI and @KC is crucial there.   2-6 headed into the trade deadline would likely trigger a fire sale, which we really, really need for our long-term health.  So here's hoping the Cards can use HFA and their good D / QB with actual hope and young skill players to give us L #5.

[AKRNA]

1 hour ago, Broncofan said:

I'm not a fan of the "losing the players" angle, to be upfront.   I agree that the players are paid professionals, just show up and do your job (yes I'm borrowing it from BB & TB12).   But it's a different era we live in than the 60's/70's/even 80's...

The problem with telling VJ to look to the future...I don't know that he would know what that looks like.  I mean, they tried to convey that performance matters...and they benched their 2nd best OL.  And cut the punter.    As if that was the problem.     

They need to get Jewell out on the field and sit Todd Davis (or Marshall, both are just not playing well, but frankly from an optics perspective, Davis is the one who needs the biggest message sent - again yesterday he starts pointing at others...when he was the one blowing assignments.  AWFUL look for a supposed captain).     

On O, a DT trade just for salary relief would be a plus long-term, since the $ saved would be really useful (I have nothing but love for DT's tenure, even though he wasn't a true alpha, but salary relief and getting younger matters most), and it would get Sanders, Sutton & Hamilton on the field.   They've already said Sam Jones will now be a gameday active, as he's the backup G.  No idea if he can work out, but it's time to find out. 

Re: bye week timing to cut bait, we need to cut bait sooner - simply because the Oct. 30 trade deadline will have passed by then.   If there's any market, we should look to deal not just DT, but Shane Ray and Barrett.  Ray & Barrett are UDFA's, and as the position is in demand, but their play hasn't warranted mega-$ contracts, they won't get big comp picks back for us (but the position is in enough demand that will still be too pricey for us to retain, as we've seen unless you are special, 2nd contracts rarely work out at market prices).    Given you can lose comp picks if you spend on FA's (not just who you lose), and you have to wait an extra year, if we can get even a 5th for either Ray/Barrett, it's a win (a year earlier is 1 round increase in value, and likely they only get end-of-4th/end-of-5th picks at best).    That would also allow us to activate Cravens when he's due to come back from IR, and we can also bring in everyone's other favorite UDFA, Jeff Holland, off the PS - because if we're a future-only team, it's time to get all the kids some real PT this year.   Given the bye comes 10 days after the trading deadline, we need to commit sooner - so losing to ARI and @KC is crucial there.   2-6 headed into the trade deadline would likely trigger a fire sale, which we really, really need for our long-term health.  So here's hoping the Cards can use HFA and their good D / QB with actual hope and young skill players to give us L #5.

I think we're pretty much in agreement. I'd forgotten about the trade deadline.

[lomaxgrUK]

I agree that getting young guys minutes is the best thing for the team on paper, but the reality is the vast majority of our team won't like it. These players, every single game, are playing for their livelihoods. Every snap they are auditioning for their next job (which comes very, very quick for most). 

Anyone who thinks that a veteran is going to help coach and progress a young guy taking his place (regardless of whether we're out of playoff contention or not) is kidding themselves. I bet 1 out 10 veterans would do that, and that would only be a vet who has earned a lot of money over his career. In addition, the Coaches in charge (albeit temporarily) are auditioning for their next gig too. Do you think they want to go out and get smashed by 30 points because they played a bunch of kids? It just doesn't happen.

These kids have got to earn their playing time in the eyes of the team. That way, when they do play, it's understood by everyone in the building rather than just trying to appease fans who think this is a Madden computer game.

Obviously the notable name is Chad Kelly. Well, I think most if not all in the building would understand him being given a chance due to the poor play of the current starter.

[jsthomp2007]

17 hours ago, 7DnBrnc53 said:

They should be.

Besides these coaches, though, I am concerned about the ownership situation. It seems that there is no hurry to get anything done there.

I think that Sandy Clough brought up Peyton Manning as a potential owner, but would that really happen? I don't want a future with someone like Joe Ellis or someone from the Kroenke family. Winning will not be a priority.

I said this months ago...the ownership thing is a huge issue...Pat Bowlen did whatever the GM and the coaches wanted him to do.  

[Broncofan]

4 hours ago, lomaxgrUK said:

I agree that getting young guys minutes is the best thing for the team on paper, but the reality is the vast majority of our team won't like it. These players, every single game, are playing for their livelihoods. Every snap they are auditioning for their next job (which comes very, very quick for most). 

Anyone who thinks that a veteran is going to help coach and progress a young guy taking his place (regardless of whether we're out of playoff contention or not) is kidding themselves. I bet 1 out 10 veterans would do that, and that would only be a vet who has earned a lot of money over his career. In addition, the Coaches in charge (albeit temporarily) are auditioning for their next gig too. Do you think they want to go out and get smashed by 30 points because they played a bunch of kids? It just doesn't happen.

These kids have got to earn their playing time in the eyes of the team. That way, when they do play, it's understood by everyone in the building rather than just trying to appease fans who think this is a Madden computer game.

Obviously the notable name is Chad Kelly. Well, I think most if not all in the building would understand him being given a chance due to the poor play of the current starter.

TBH, that's why we should be very active at the trade deadline.  Guys like Ray & Barrett would be rightfully upset at losing a chance to audition for next year's contract.   Giving more time to Sam Jones is a no-brainer, Max Garcia gets no leeway - he either plays OK, or he sits, and frankly, a cut to send a real message (that the status quo isn't OK) is justifiable if he is as bad as he's always been.   

The only place on D where it's a little sticky is with Jewell - but TBH, he's already playing better than either in pass coverage.   And the run D is so bad, putting Jewell in there can be seen as a justifiable move too (although that's more on the edge setting falling completely apart, while the ILB's have been getting washed away and that's not helping, complete lack of edge setting is so eye-opening).    The only place on O where it's sticky is WR, because Sanders/DT/Sutton are our clear top 3 - trading DT even for just salary relief would help justify more time for Hamilton.   

It's why trading DT, Ray and Barrett makes a ton of sense.   In DT's case, the $ saved means we don't even need a pick back.  In Ray & Barrett's case, pass rush is in demand, and they are cheap this year, so every team can bid, so we should get something decent pick-wise (5th or better seems about right, we aren't getting a Day 2 pick unless the GM is a complete moron, knowing we're the ones in a bind).   Hopefully Elway takes the plunge.  Again, a L @ ARI on ThuNF is huge, because that and a road L  to KC would almost certainly trigger the fire sale...which we desperately need, our cap health and focus on youth are the only ways to get this ship righted by 2020 (2019 is a pipe dream now).

[jsthomp2007]

^^^And, it seemed like Sutton was starting to get it a bit the last game...think he is going to be a freak. 

[iLikeDefense]

Sutton must have the most catches that are out of bounds. Smh at Keenum.