I want Cassel's job.

$12mil to hand the ball off? Yes please.

I love the idea of paying someone a bonus while inadvertently admitting they suck.

Did Cassel really play worse? His QB rating was worse, but primarily because Haley actually had Cassel throwing downfield, and he through some picks. But overall offensively, pre-bye, our offense was a joke. Post-bye, it was probably close to NFL-average. 2 of the last 3 games we had 490 yards or more.

My guess is Haley doesn't think we have the WRs to spread the field. ****ers can't get open, so may as well keep them in to block.

Look, nothing in Haley's bio suggests that we are going to see Herm II. Everything in Herm's bio and rhetoric suggested he did plan to play not-to-lose. Ironically, Herm was given the benefit of the doubt, and no one thought he would mess with the offense....whereas with Haley, the opposite seems to be true.

I think our offense will be better next year, but it will be hard to compare, given we are moving from essentially the easiest schedule the NFL to the hardest. If Haley sucks as an offensive coach, get rid of his ass, because that is what he is supposed to bring to the table. Haley will earn his paycheck next year or get fired.

I have talked to my inside source, he informed me that the offense will be somewhere in between the Solari/Herm offense and the Vermeil/Saunders offense.

There's a huge, huge red flag if we are talking about our QB and saying interceptions were a product of throwing downfield.

I wonder what the reaction here had he said they're gonna run a bread and butter offense.

This is not true go to the site there is nothing about this on it .http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/...ml&startrow=12

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/...litz-8249.html

Under "Things I Didn't Used To Know," 3rd paragraph.

LMAO

If you have to ask this question, you either didn't watch the games or don't know what you're watching.

:facepalm:

Without knowing the source of this report, it's difficult to ascertain its validity.

That said, it does jibe with reports of the Chiefs meeting with so many offensive lineman at the Senior Bowl, etc. If they're really wanting to run the ball effectively, regardless of down and distance, they'll need to replace the center, right guard and right tackle this year, just for starters.

And more proof that you are mildly if not fully, reeruned.

http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_r...ft?eref=fromSI

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/...litz-8249.html

Making Bill Muir the Chiefs’ offensive coordinator made sense from this perspective: head coach Todd Haley wants to run a meat and potatoes offense. He believes the Chiefs’ offensive personnel is best suited to play smash mouth football.

In fact, I’ve been told that was one of the sources of conflict between Haley and Charlie Weis, the former offensive coordinator. Weis wanted to use a lot of shotgun and spread formations while jazzing up the offense. Haley wanted to play it more conservatively.

WTF is everyone taking this as gospel? or potential gospel? Not even a link to the opening post about where it come from. Looks like someone fantasy blog entry. Thinking of neg repping the dude just on principle of not posting the link and getting everyone worked up.

Use your brain Planet.....

Haley doesn't run a martyball offense. Never has, never will. He doesn't believe in it, he believes that calculated risk is essential to an offensive game plan. The friggin polar opposite of herm and martyball.

Unfortunately, our best formula for success is to pound the ball with the run and soften the defense so Cassel can throw. Until he proves otherwise.

Even if we bring in a marquee receiver, I would think the same thing, except maybe a tad bit more pass friendly. I don't see a problem with a more conservative offense if Cassel is our QB.

Good thoughts.

Jones better be in good shape. Battle on the payroll will only help. We have a slug of one-back RB's. Castille? What has he done? He's caught a few balls, and helped in short yardage downs. One drawback to the O was forgetting we have the FB position.

The onus is on the defense, no question. Arguing about the spread vs. tight formations is BS. If we have to catch up, we're toast, if we're locked into the running game. You can't pass the ball without protection, and/or an effective ground game.

I saw Herm v2.0 two seasons ago. I don't want to see v3.0.

ROFL and there you have it.

Well, we did see in 2010 that a predictable running attack can work real well. Much better, IMO, than even Herm's offense. Of course, the only legit defense we really faced down the stretch was against Baltimore. This offense could be downright scary with a slightly more conservative run-centered offense if only we could prove we can throw the damn ball downfield, even when the defense is gunning to stop the run.