Rank Your Choices for Head Coach

[BroncoBruin]

The Zac Taylor-Klint Kubiak connection is interesting, but I can't see them going with the young, inexperienced guy. And I don't think an OC vacancy would be too appealing with no QB and Gary Kubiak lurking in the shadows. Better to stick with McVay for a while and wait for the best opportunities. 

I find Pagano to be such a bland, uninspiring hire unless he comes with an all-star level staff. Fangio or Munchak I would be fine with, they are both among the best in football at their specialties and bring decades of NFL coaching experience + an edgier, tougher brand of leadership. I do think those qualities would be beneficial for the team as a whole, but what would be the plan for the offense to improve? 

My preference:

1. Fangio
2. Munchak
3. Taylor (easily the riskiest hire, but the bottom two are so uninspiring to me I would prefer the swing and miss)
4. Pagano
5. Flores

[broncofan48]

1 minute ago, BroncoBruin said:

The Zac Taylor-Klint Kubiak connection is interesting, but I can't see them going with the young, inexperienced guy. And I don't think an OC vacancy would be too appealing with no QB and Gary Kubiak lurking in the shadows. Better to stick with McVay for a while and wait for the best opportunities. 

I find Pagano to be such a bland, uninspiring hire unless he comes with an all-star level staff. Fangio or Munchak I would be fine with, they are both among the best in football at their specialties and bring decades of NFL coaching experience + an edgier, tougher brand of leadership. I do think those qualities would be beneficial for the team as a whole, but what would be the plan for the offense to improve? 

Klimt Kubiak obvs

[Scoundrel]

2 hours ago, Broncofan said:

Taylor's interview is in LA tomorrow, Munchak on Friday in DEN, and then it's Flores on Saturday in NE, and Fangio on Monday in CHI.

 

Thank you

[French Fan]

Elway said the next will be here for the next 10 years !!!

Pagano 58 yrs , Munchak 58 yrs , Fangio 60 yrs so if i listen John , theses coach cannot be here for the next 10 yrs except if you want a very old coach with 0 vision of the new NFL ( passing game) 

Flores 37 yrs and Taylor 35 yrs are the only coach who can be here in 10 yrs!! 

In the process i believe Munchak is a man to beat. Denver struggle in OL and Mike is a gourou !

Taylor is intresting but only in Offensive Cordinator 

Flores can be an outsider but his roots in NE will be a stop for a lot of people

Fangio and Pagano are on the same level, boring..........

My preference:

1. Munchak
2. Taylor (very risky but.....sean Mc Vay was not easy)
3. Flores (hummm Patriots way ??)
4. Pagano
5. Fangio

[champ11]

8 hours ago, BroncoBruin said:

The Zac Taylor-Klint Kubiak connection is interesting, but I can't see them going with the young, inexperienced guy. And I don't think an OC vacancy would be too appealing with no QB and Gary Kubiak lurking in the shadows. Better to stick with McVay for a while and wait for the best opportunities. 

I find Pagano to be such a bland, uninspiring hire unless he comes with an all-star level staff. Fangio or Munchak I would be fine with, they are both among the best in football at their specialties and bring decades of NFL coaching experience + an edgier, tougher brand of leadership. I do think those qualities would be beneficial for the team as a whole, but what would be the plan for the offense to improve? 

My preference:

1. Fangio
2. Munchak
3. Taylor (easily the riskiest hire, but the bottom two are so uninspiring to me I would prefer the swing and miss)
4. Pagano
5. Flores

Bland in uninspiring is what we are now

[thebestever6]

1 hour ago, champ11 said:

Bland in uninspiring is what we are now

I agree I'm mad we didn't even interview todd monken

[germ-x]

17 hours ago, AnAngryAmerican said:

Yeah I second that question, @germ-x, why on Earth do you like Flores? He has the same resume as Vance, but without play-calling duties and exposure to other coaches/systems/schemes and brings the stench of New England assistants. 

I can’t believe they’re even interviewing him, Rooney Rule or not. 

Honestly, I have no idea if Flores would be a great coach and I could see why he’d be a turnoff for many as he does have red flags.  He’s only been with the Patriots (whose coordinators haven’t transitioned well to HCs) and he only has 1 year of coordinator experience.

However, I do like a lot of his background and the only thing he shares in common with Vance Joseph is that they both were only coordinators for a year.

For starters Flores had nothing handed to him.  He started out as an assistant scout.  A guy a grade ahead of me in school was an assistant scout for the Falcons for a few years and it’s awful.  It’s the bottom of an organization.  Long hours, constant traveling, little pay, basically doing all the grunt work for the pro and regional scouts with them getting all the recognition if something goes right.  It’s not a grad assistant job where you’re around the team, partying with the staff after wins, being a part of the fraternity, and feeling like a part of family.  It’s sitting by yourself in a motel room at 2 am putting together film for an area scout who isn’t going to take time to do it.

Flores also has experience all over the roster (unlike Joseph who’d only coached DBs until getting a DC job) and had to work his way up the ladder.  Flores went from an assistant scout, to a pro scout, to a special teams assistant, to an offensive assistant, to a safeties coach, to an LB coach, to defensive coordinator.  He’s literally been a part of pretty much every piece of the puzzle.  He’s evaluated talent for an organization and coached all 3 phases of the game (offense, defense, and special teams). 

Finally, watching him on the sideline of Patriots games and listening to a few interviews of his this year he doesn’t seem to have that Patriot arrogance that McDanials, Patricia, hell even dating back to Mangini have/had.  He just seems like a good dude who cares about his players and considering his track record is a guy willing to work his butt off at any task placed in front of him.

Will he be a great coach?  Hell I don’t know.  But I know (and almost every single person in here agrees with this based on their posts) Pagano and Munchack aren’t. I’d rather swing for the fence, which is why I like Flores and Taylor over the failed retreads.

[AnAngryAmerican]

20 hours ago, broncos67 said:

Eh, the fact that he has ties to CU is somewhat irrelevant to me. I care more that he came from the Andy Reid coaching tree. There's a lot of success from that tree in the NFL.

The Andy Reid tree is the only redeeming quality there. This might not be fair to Eric Bieniemy but they're not going to want to interview someone who has so many similarities to the guy they just fire, that was point I was sarcastically attempting to make.

Zac Taylor is the one who is incongruent with the other three interviewees (Flores is the Rooney Rule throw-in and I heard from my beat reporter friend the other day the powers that be at Dove Valley think there's a chance he changes his mind and declines to interview here). Taylor seems to be the "why not at least look at this type of guy and see what we get from it," interview. Someone (sorry I forgot who) said the other day it could be an interview done now but with an eye towards the future. 

[Scoundrel]

I think if you come off a season with a Rooney rule qualifier as your head coach you shouldn’t have to meet that requirement the next hire round. But that’s just me. 

[AnAngryAmerican]

12 hours ago, Broncofan said:

Taylor's interview is in LA tomorrow, Munchak on Friday in DEN, and then it's Flores on Saturday in NE, and Fangio on Monday in CHI.

 

I wonder who else is on the "Elway-led HC search committee," as Ellis said he's letting Elway do this and isn't sitting in on the interviews. I do wonder if that is a PR move as Ellis has been getting slammed in some corners of the local media and by the fan base, with people dredging up the point that he was the one who interviewed and selected Mac. It would be interesting if Kubiak is on the committee. 

[AnAngryAmerican]

12 hours ago, BroncoBruin said:

The Zac Taylor-Klint Kubiak connection is interesting, but I can't see them going with the young, inexperienced guy. And I don't think an OC vacancy would be too appealing with no QB and Gary Kubiak lurking in the shadows. Better to stick with McVay for a while and wait for the best opportunities. 

I find Pagano to be such a bland, uninspiring hire unless he comes with an all-star level staff. Fangio or Munchak I would be fine with, they are both among the best in football at their specialties and bring decades of NFL coaching experience + an edgier, tougher brand of leadership. I do think those qualities would be beneficial for the team as a whole, but what would be the plan for the offense to improve? 

My preference:

1. Fangio
2. Munchak
3. Taylor (easily the riskiest hire, but the bottom two are so uninspiring to me I would prefer the swing and miss)
4. Pagano
5. Flores

I think it would be of great benefit to the franchise, especially in the long-term, to have Zac Taylor on the staff in one significant capacity or another (either OC or HC). I think the only way that happens is if Kubiak takes on a Assistant HC role; he's coaching, he's on the sidelines, he's part of crafting the game-plan, but on gamedays he's really just a voice of experience while Taylor calls the plays. 

Something like this would be appealing IMO. 

HC: Chuck Pagano 

Asst HC: Gary Kubiak

OC: Zac Taylor

QBs Coach: Klint Kubiak

DC: John Pagano 

I could see an arrangement like that working out, only concern would be a "too many cooks in the kitchen" on offense. I think if they go this route, Pagano would be the better choice as HC as he has been a HC before, has a defensive background to set the tone there (with his brother) but could be a CEO-type, which, truthfully, I think is what they're looking for. 

[germ-x]

6 minutes ago, AnAngryAmerican said:

I think it would be of great benefit to the franchise, especially in the long-term, to have Zac Taylor on the staff in one significant capacity or another (either OC or HC). I think the only way that happens is if Kubiak takes on a Assistant HC role; he's coaching, he's on the sidelines, he's part of crafting the game-plan, but on gamedays he's really just a voice of experience while Taylor calls the plays. 

Something like this would be appealing IMO. 

HC: Chuck Pagano 

Asst HC: Gary Kubiak

OC: Zac Taylor

QBs Coach: Klint Kubiak

DC: John Pagano 

I could see an arrangement like that working out, only concern would be a "too many cooks in the kitchen" on offense. I think if they go this route, Pagano would be the better choice as HC as he has been a HC before, has a defensive background to set the tone there (with his brother) but could be a CEO-type, which, truthfully, I think is what they're looking for. 

Jesus.  That would have to be the most nepotism ever used to build a coaching staff....which is what I think Elway needs to get away from.

[Broncofan]

12 minutes ago, AnAngryAmerican said:

I think it would be of great benefit to the franchise, especially in the long-term, to have Zac Taylor on the staff in one significant capacity or another (either OC or HC). I think the only way that happens is if Kubiak takes on a Assistant HC role; he's coaching, he's on the sidelines, he's part of crafting the game-plan, but on gamedays he's really just a voice of experience while Taylor calls the plays. 

Something like this would be appealing IMO. 

HC: Chuck Pagano 

Asst HC: Gary Kubiak

OC: Zac Taylor

QBs Coach: Klint Kubiak

DC: John Pagano 

I could see an arrangement like that working out, only concern would be a "too many cooks in the kitchen" on offense. I think if they go this route, Pagano would be the better choice as HC as he has been a HC before, has a defensive background to set the tone there (with his brother) but could be a CEO-type, which, truthfully, I think is what they're looking for. 

I agree with the concern on making Zac Taylor a HC.  That's a huuuuuge jump.   But we have to be willing to be creative here, we need some very real calculated risks if we want to fix the O.   If we go safe, with our O, we will make at best only incremental small improvements to our performance - we won't bomb out completely, but our ceiling for improvement also gets capped.   For where our O is at, and with our current O roster talent, that's not going to have any real impact, other than to keep us in middle-tier purgatory.

I don't mind taking a huge risk on Zac Taylor as an OC - because to be blunt, if we flame out this year, hey, early pick for a much deeper top-end 2020 QB draft class.   If Taylor works out, hey, we have our mainstay OC and possible long-term future HC, and a key guy to develop our next QBOTF.    We can't really lose either way - because 2019 is NOT a year we can realistically contend.  Now, again, Elway has to be willing to see that last part - but if we want to get out of our mediocrity, we have to accept that we aren't going to get the best and brightest O minds who are established.   McCarthy said no thanks, and while I don't think he's the answer for our organization, the fact he blew us off without even interviewing, shows where we are in the NFL pecking order to attract bright O minds.   So that means we have to take a chance.   Otherwise, we risk getting stuck with the Mike McCoys of the world as OC.   Or having to rely on a tried-and-true fallback that can only improve the O so much - because they don't bring a fresh perspective on our O's ability to solve problems.   And that's a big no thanks on that front.

FWIW, though, I think one Kubiak is enough lol.  Do love the idea of finding a way to get Zac Taylor to join the coaching staff, but not as HC yet.

[AnAngryAmerican]

3 hours ago, champ11 said:

Bland in uninspiring is what we are now

Looking at this process cannot be done in a vacuum, one has to examine the past to see how it's influencing current decisions. Last time, just one year off a Super Bowl with an HC who abruptly retired and a roster they still viewed as one of the best in the league, was the time to swing for the fences. Boy, did they screw that up. Now, they're once bitten, twice shy. Not only did they foul up the last choice but the roster has seen significant deterioration, the franchise is in a shambles with an ownership squabble and is in as bad a PR position as it has been since 2010.

Safe and conservative, or bland and uninspiring, is what they are almost forced to do.

If the new head coaching regime crashes and burns, Bill Bowlen & Co., to mention the fan base and corporate partners, are not going to be quiet (not that they're being quiet now, but this would seem quiet if we're in this same spot in two years). I'd wager that the way the powers that be are looking at this is it's best to get back a measure of respectability; win 9 or 10 games, play meaningful football in December in front of a packed crowd at Mile High (or Kitty Chow Stadium at Mile High or whatever it's called lol). Another swing and miss and heads will roll. 

[AnAngryAmerican]

2 minutes ago, germ-x said:

Jesus.  That would have to be the most nepotism ever used to build a coaching staff....which is what I think Elway needs to get away from.

Agreed. But I do think that is realistic. I'm not posting about what I want but rather how I can see things playing out given the inherent constraints. 

Gary is going to be on the staff in one capacity or another and Klint is already on the staff and not going anywhere. it's been widely reported that Chuck would likely bring John on as DC.