FWIW, I agree with you. I thought Todd Haley brought discipline to a very undisciplined team, came with a plan chalk full of fresh ideas, and brought an identity to a team that lacked one since Marty Schottenheimer left. Obviously, Todd Haley made his mistakes. He wanted full control of the offense, but was never willing to say it. He ran off multiple OC's, and was obviously tough to work with/for. In the end, I believe the positives of Haley outweighed the negatives.

Romeo didn't come in with a plan. He came in with the approach of "status-quo." What worked for a short time last year will work this year. However, players reverted back to old practice habits, Bowe held out, Tamba got suspended, multiple players suffered nagging injuries IMO because they weren't expected to be in top shape as Haley demanded. The status-quo plan snowballed into a 2-13 team.

This team needs a disciplinarian with a clear direction. They need a GM that will back that disciplinarian up when times get tough, and allow him to grow in the role...knowing it is for the greater good. Haley was one piece of the puzzle. (A QB would go a long way as well...)

His game management needed to improve. I've never denied that. I do think the gambles tended to take place when the team was a little more desperate for lucky breaks. But still... It's a valid criticism. As milkman has said many times, these are things he deserved a little more time to prove he can change his ways.

Great post. No Haley defender is saying he was a great coach. We all believe he was a flawed coach, but that the positives outweighed the negatives, and many of the negatives were the product of a tyrannical boss or could be changed by growing up as a coach. We only would have like to have seen how he would have done with a semi reasonable GM and with at least a semi average qb. Maybe he would have still imploded. For my money, if he started a season with jamaal Charles and Kyle orton, those two changes in itself would have turned Haley's team into a legit playoff contender.

He didn't HAVE to play 4 games with Palko.

Mr. Offensive Geni(0)us chose to...

One thing I have never understood about the Haley bashing crowd was this...

Almost every single time the camera's focused in on Haley, he was not berating anyone. I saw him in discussions with players a couple of times while he was here, but really not that many for a man with a reputation as a hot head.

Nor was he seen talking into his headset, yet it is widely accepted that he overrode the playcalling of nearly all of his OC's. How exactly was that possible without conversation?

That's pretty much how I see it.

We all have strong points and short-comings. All of us. Even Planeteers. Haley had flaws and I have never argued that he was the epitome of human evolution. Still, he represents what the Chiefs needed and still need; a young coach who can put his imprimatur on and grow with the franchise, a coach who focuses on the fundamentals of conditioning and basic football (see turnover records), and a guy who approaches the game with a certain creativity (The Chiefs were once known for innovation and I'd like to see that particular slice of history repeat itself.)

The fact of the matter is that, for whatever reason, Pioli decided to hang Haley out to dry. He developed an absolute hatred for the guy. Why? I can only speculate that Haley thought he was going to be an actual NFL head coach, not a puppet and, when he learned that he was going to have to dance for Dr. Evil, he simply couldn't do it ... it wasn't in his nature.

Meanwhile, Pioli was and is a freaking cancer. His organizational decision-making and personnel decisions aren't just suspect, they're obviously pitiful. He is a man clearly out of his mind and Clark's worst decision to date. Yet people who could not function, let alone thrive, while working directly under Pioli will blame Haley for every possible sin they can conjure up. It's irrational, in my view.

I think the evidence speaks for itself. They say you are what your record says you are. And, when it comes to the Chiefs, nuff said.

FAX

You weren't paying attention then.

He chewed major ass on Bowe, Ca$$hole, and Grandpa OC just to name a few...

In almost three years... three times. Some guys act like it was a weekly thing. And FWIW, the Cassel ass chewing was pretty much needed at the time.

With all respect, Mr. Rausch, I don't believe that is the case.

He had to play somebody. He put Orton in as soon as he could and he got hurt on his first play. Evidence suggests that Haley was told not to play Stanzi under any circumstances. Who was left?

There is also good reason to believe (Babb's report) that Haley wanted Hasselbeck and was told by Pioli to go pound sand.

To me, it appears that Pioli painted the entire franchise in a corner with Cassel. That, I believe, is the root problem in respect to Palko, et al.

FAX

:clap:

Oh no the coach chewed some ass? Thats terrible.

I can't disagree with that.

FAX

Quoted for truth.

Cmon guys, we coulda won an extra game or 2, missed out on Geno, and then fired his ass after this season. It would have been awesome.

He put Orton in and immediately ran one of the longest-developing plays in the game of football, against one of the best pass-rushing defenses in all of football.

He's either a ****ing moron or he was TRYING to hurt Orton in order to have an excuse to go back to Palko.

The chewing of Cassel was ABSOLUTELY warranted.

I was at the infamous Minnesota game, I saw the whole thing up close.

After the play, Cassel came to the sideline. Haley CALMLY said a couple of thing to him and attempted to smack him on the ass. Cassel brushed him off and acted like a baby, at which point Haley called him a pussy.

Not everyone? Try ONE PERSON. Sac is the ONLY person on this board that wanted to draft Okung and move Albert to OG.

Orton was healthy and sitting while Palko stunk it up.



I don't see the connection here...

And not at all my point...

I own up to that. I exaggerated, but at least I'm willing to admit it. But the argument is moving the uprights. The reason people rejected drafting Okung wasn't because they loved Albert's future. It's because they didn't want to spend a high pick on a lineman, let alone one they weren't in love with.

For half a game against the Bears. Unless you're suggesting it was a terrible decision to not start Orton on Sunday against Pittsburgh when he didn't report to the Chiefs until mid-day that Friday.

That's also untrue.

I was one of the most vocal and it was absolutely BOTH - we didn't want a tackle AND we loved Albert's future.

Well done.

I am in agreement with every word.
Thats the thing. Pioli wanted Haley out after 2010.

Let me say that again...PIOLI WANTED HALEY OUT AFTER 2010.

You know why? Because Haley told Scott that Cassel was garbage and that he couldnt win with him and wanted the team to sign Matt Hasselback.

In 2009, Clark Hunt wanted us to draft a franchise quarterback and Pioli stuck his neck out by standing on a soapbox for an alternate route and traded for Cassel and gave him that reeruned contract and was dead set on proving that was the right choice. Scott made that trade BEFORE Haley was even hired....then Scott went against Haleys wishes and drafted Tyson Jackson at 3.

Like FAX said, I think Haley flourishes when he gets a system around him thaat supports what he wants to do...that the way it should always be.

Haley was setting up a flea flicker all game. We were running a 60-40 split favoring the run and he was desperate to put points on the board and make a calculated risk.

"According to Sports Illustrated, Oregon's Chip Kelly will be looking for "near complete control when it comes to personnel decision-making power" if he's to make the jump to the NFL.
SI's Don Banks believes that could make Kelly a no-go for the Eagles, who are expected to make a big push for the Ducks' innovative offensive mind. According to Banks, Kelly could also be a possibility for the Panthers. With only an interim GM in place in Carolina, Kelly could likely get the "complete control" he's seeking if coach Ron Rivera is dismissed. Kelly's addition would be an exciting one for Cam Newton."

This is in the same article in the link above, btw.

I agree with both of you here. I would simply add Clark Hunt's worst decision was not Pioli's hiring, but instead Pioli's (non)firing when the time came to make a choice for the franchise. Hunt fired the wrong guy and now he has to start the whole thing over in finding a competent staff for this team -- this is Hunt's worst decision to date.

Chip Kelly and Cam Newton would be a powerful pairing, IMO.

Last year would have been too soon...December 31st is the right time. Ill give him until the 3rd to make that move.

FYP

To be honest, the right time to fire Pioli was after the playoff debacle in which Pioli's QB showed the world how stubborn Pioli is with the QB position. It was evident during that game the 63 million dollar man was not worthy.

That's silly.

You think that the right time to fire Pioli was after he inherited a 2-14 team and made the playoffs in his second year here?

2011s final record was understandable given the rash of major injuries to major players...after 2012 will be the right time.

He has had 2 HC hires, has chosen not to do anything about the QB position and has had 4 drafts.

The right time is new years eve 2012.

Maybe you were. The conversations I've seen were a lot more about "we don't need to sink another pick on another freaking lineman" because Berry was the consensus choice here. This thread tells an interesting story (it's about Gaither, not Okung).
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showt...+albert&page=2

So a few things. One, you acknowledge that you liked Albert's future, not the way he was playing at the time. Two, the thread shows that CP was less than fully confident that Albert could be a franchise left tackle and viewed him as replaceable. The conversation started with "did Albert improve?" I don't know how anyone can look at Albert's progression and not admit that he is a much better left tackle than he was in 2009, or even his rookie season. He turned into a top notch run blocker overnight and his pass protection has evolved from constantly making mistakes to now being a pretty consistently solid pass protector.

People keep saying this, but it's not completely true.

Orton didn't make it to KC until 3 days before the Steelers game.

The only mistake Haley made was not starting him in Chicago. He dislocated his finger in Chicago.

He couldn't play vs the Jets. Finger.

He played the next game vs GB.

If my manager went out and spent 63 million on a QB that is not even a back up, I'd ****ing hit the ceiling.

As for why Palko was on the roster? That was a lot more Pioli than Haley, and fits the overall theme that Pioli didn't want anyone on the roster that could possibly create a QB controversy. It's not like Pioli brought anyone into training camp to compete with Tyler Palko, unless you count Croyle/Guttierez, two guys who were so bad they aren't in the league anymore.

Case closed.

And therein is the problem. Good coaches don't get desperate, they get determined.

Forget all of the draws on 3rd downs and shit, that flea flicker against Chicago was the dumbest thing Haley did during a game as HC of the Chiefs.

Well, Haley knew Palko. So, he does share some of that blame. Pioli, however, is in charge of personnel.

People seem to think Haley let Orton ride the bench for a month or something.

I don't care about Todd, but I find it funny how there can be so much hate towards him when he was force-fed Cassel and had a shit boss like Pioli.

Fax wins, game over.

I understand the strategy. New QB with no experience with the playbook, probably start with a few run plays as he gets his feet wet. That being said, don't think it was desperation as much as it was Haley trying to be way too cute. Not a good playcall. I would have gone with playaction instead.

I don't think it's unusual for coaches to bring journeymen in to fill out your roster. If the GM does nothing to add a new guy to replace that journeyman, that's on the GM. All Pioli had to do was bring in a cheap veteran to play backup. The reason we didn't bring in that veteran is because we all know that Pioli didn't want to bring in QB competition.

THIS.

LOL. Wrong again.

Let me give you Matt Cassel and Tyler Palko as your quarterbacks and then take away 3 of your best players including 2 of your 3 best offensive players.

You'd get desperate, too.

Bears were 19th in sacks, 19th in DVOA QB pressure.

Go ahead and read the threads. The majority of people didn't want Russell Okung because we didn't like Russell Okung. And because we wanted a playmaker, which is why we wanted Berry over Okung. And because we didn't want to draft yet another lineman.

There were a lot of people who were dissatisfied with Albert but didn't want Okung. And there were a few who were patient and thought Albert deserved a little more time. But there was pretty much nobody that thought that in 2009 was anything close to acceptable. And in 2010, there were a whole lot less.

The measure of a man is how you handle adversity.

Haley handled it like a 14-year old kid, on acid.

They're still the Bears and it's still a stupid, stupid playcall.

There was one guy who was dissatisfied with Albert. I remember because i have always had albert's back. You are attempting to rewrite history.

That's true. But I also have seen great workers do terrible work because of overbearing bosses. If Pioli tried to even do a fraction of the micromanagement to Bellichick or Coughlin, I can't even imagine the shitstorm that would have followed. They probably would have quit and made a public embarrassment of Pioli.

I disagree, but whats done is done and its not really worth a continuing discussion.

I just think that Haley will land somewhere as a HC and flourish when he is able to chose his staff and players.

One guy? Interesting. You should read the thread I posted above when Jared Gaither was signed. I've always had Albert's back too. Doesn't mean there wasn't some conversation about whether Albert should be moved to Guard or Right Tackle, and a lot of conversation about how he wasn't progressing as a pass protector. Or that he hadn't established himself as a franchise left tackle.

In either event... NOBODY thought Albert was playing like a franchise left tackle in 2009 or 2010. Any of his backers believed in his potential, not in the way he was playing.

I don't. He's an X's and O's guy. He's a good enough coordinator.

But a HEAD coach he is not. Primarily because he can't keep his.

I actually think he's an okay offensive mind. Good not great. He had room to improve as a game manager. As a head coach, what I care about is getting the most out of his players. What I saw in Kansas City was players taking conditioning very, very seriously and improvements at almost every position at technique and discipline. In Pittsburgh, I see an okay scheme, but I see the o-line playing with far better technique and Ben actually operating with a scheme instead of freelancing. Before his injury, I thought Ben was playing some of his best football in years.

I think he's a much better coach than an X's and O's guy. I understand why people see his temper as a red flags. I just can't stand people who go out of their way to discredit any good thing he did. Because he did plenty of good things.

Has Haley ever won much without a HOF QB and future HOF WR?

2010 was a good year. Certainly enough to see potential in the coach and team. The rest is a criticism for how many wins you have in a half season behind a shitty qb missing the running back who masked how bad the qb was.

So the answer is... How much opportunity did he have to prove he could build a winning team? And how much would that have changed if pioli listened and got even an average qb. Even if romeo won the last 2 of three games, we saw that the problems with Haley's team all seemed to disappear with a better qb.

Or dissappear once Haley was removed?


It's funny that you are willing to make all these excuses for Haley, because you feel he was this great motivator and his guys played so hard for him, when in fact they got blown out time after time when they didn't play hard. Even in 2010.

So, no it's not on Haley, but he deserves part of it.

Weis

Blowouts aren't blowouts when you have a qb that can win games where the opponent scores more than 20 points. How many blowouts would we have had if we hash Aaron Rodgers engineering the comeback instead of Matt 3-and-out cassel?

Did laz get a sex change?

Jamaal Charles
Tyler palko

Given that this team went 4-3 to start the year behind horrendous qb play and a terrible running game, you never once thought about what the season would have looked like with orton all season long and a healthy jamaal charles?

Sure, if we had one of the top 3 QB's in the NFL, fine. So now we are saying Haley can't win without a top 5 franchise QB?


So how many blowouts this year do you put on Crennel, cause he has a QB core as bad as Haley?

Blowouts are blowouts when your team tunes you out and quits on you, which is what happened last year.


I'm not against Haley, I liked the hire. But when you have to make this many excuses as to why he failed, it begins to look a little off.

Was he the main culprit? No probably not. Does he deserve blame for it? Yeah

It is difficult for me to fault a HC when his QB is Matt Cassel.

Haley didn't have a RB with 1500 yards last year.

And those 4 wins were against who?


The McNabb led Vikes, Colts, MNF miracle, and ?

The Raiders.

Crennel and this team would be 0-4 vs them

I fought this same battle when people were calling herm the worst coach of all time. And literally meant it. And got labeled a ball washer when I called him an average coach at best who inherited a terrible roster.

I've acknowledged Haley was a flawed coach. And areas where he needed major improvement. I am in the middle on Haley, but am painted as a ball washer because i have to fight against people who don't give even 1% credit to him for any kind of success.

You're painted as a ball washer because you often exaggerate to make a point, while concurrently questioning others' credibility. Not surprisingly, this pisses people off.

Haley was fine as long as weis was here to hold his hand and show him what to do.

No, Weis gave up on Cassel, and it was Haley who got the most out of the player. But Haley hated Cassel, and the former caused the coach to fail, but not before showing him how to woo a waitress at 31 Flavors.

I thought it was arbys

:clap:

I exaggerated on a point, was called out on it, and owned up to it. Let's face it, hating Haley is a popular position. And I'm one of the only ones calling people out when they exaggerate the other side.

You said Haley didn't improve anyone. You're quick to credit Weis for 2010 success, and not mention that maybe Weis may have had a difficult time winning without Charles too. I continue to hear the ridiculous Tyler Palko argument. And actually claiming that Albert is no better than he was as a rookie is just mind-boggling. I'm sorry, but when you're so hell bent on discrediting a guy that you find every way to pass credit to someone else, that's exactly the mentality CP too often has. And it's the same dumb shit that made people criticize Herm even for personnel decisions stupidly made by Carl Peterson.

Haley is gone. The team continued to suck. Let's stop the pretense that the team was bad because of Haley. He certainly didn't help himself in his approach to the start of last season. He certainly didn't get along with Pioli or Cassel or really too many people. This year's team has been an embarrassment from day one. Haley didn't do that. Pioli and Crennel did.

Nobody said the team was bad because of Haley.

I accept your apology for criticizing my credibility with respect to Albert.

Here's exactly what I said about Haley:

Stop attributing absolutes to me.

I've debated you enough to know that your statement is more consistent with how you think. But it's not being backed by what you're saying in this thread. Because what I'm hearing you say is that he didn't ruin everything, but he certainly didn't help anything. Every time I've pointed out some level of success during his time, you credited it to someone else.

And that's where I'm pushing back. Sorry if I'm taking it out on you, but it's the same shit I fought during the Herm era. 4 years later, people are realizing that I was right. For the record... again, I do not know if Haley was a great coach. But I believed he showed enough upside and wasn't given a fair shake to prove what he could have done in the right environment. And when I say "right environment" I'm talking about an environment that NO quality coach would want to work under.