Haley gambled to win
 

Make up your mind. When you get a guy like Herm or Marty in people complain "they play not to lose. I just want a guy that plays to win."

Then you get a guy like Haley in who opens with an onside kick and people say "that was stupid. he seemed intimidated."

Intimidated by opening with an onside kick? How stupid can you be? That's gambling. That's playing to win. Going for it on 4th down was playing to win. Why? Because he doesn't have faith in Cassel so he knows he's going to have to do some unconventional things for that to happen. Shit man, credit the coach for being smart enough to understand these things rather than put his head in the sand about it. Haley would drop Cassel for an upgrade in a heartbeat if he could right now. Bet on it. Cassel won't be QB'ing this team next year unless he has some kind of crazy turn around.

In the meantime complaining about things like the onside kick and going for it on 4th are stupid. We were on the road, in Indy where they generally blow people out. Haley figured we would need to manufacture some points and take some possessions away from Manning in order to win so he went with that in mind. And it almost worked if not for a single dropped pass (for the most part). Haley and this coaching staff have led us to 3-1 and more than likely we will be 5-3 or better midway. At this point, outside of bitching about Cassel, there really isn't much to complain about.

I agree, I would take a coach like Haley any day over a conservative guy.

Win or lose, I'd much rather see Haley on the sidelines than Herm or Grampa or Gun or even Marty, at this point.

Haley has done well so far. Second-guessing his decisions in yesterday's game would take an entirely different tone if our offense wasn't run by a giant-chinned dumbass from hell. We would be 4 and 0 and building a Haley statue out of Puffs and jizz.

Speaking of which ... I wonder why Haley and Weis haven't gone to Pioli and said, "Enough of this vile moron!!!" ... or maybe they have and they don't believe there's an option available to them that's any better? Right now, that's my only Haley complaint ... he had no problem canning assistants and coordinators, but he's sticking with Satan's Dingleberry.

FAX

I was fine with both the decision to try the onside kick and to go for it on 4th down, for what that's worth. The onside kick is aggressive and has a decent chance of working if executed properly. As for the 4th down play, most people will say "take the points," but there have been tons of statistical analyses that say going for it is always the right choice when you're that close.

I liked the decision. Ball took a crazy bounce. If the Chiefs would have covered that on the 40, he would be a hero.

Haley also noted that Indy is the most successful team in the NFL on 1st possessions.

I have no problem with either decision. None.

However, perhaps Haley has underestimated his own team a bit because we ultimately didn't have to do anything unconventional or ultra-aggressive to win yesterday.

I'm guessing it's because there are simply no other options, short of 100% wildcat. Croyle can't be trusted to stay healthy and there are no other QB's on the roster (Palko is on the PS but he sucks worse than Cassel).

WEll hindsight is always 20/20. Not a person here thought we would hold Indy to some FG's for almost the entire game. So I'm sure he counted on us giving up some points, and felt the need to keep up or get ahead early. I am sure if we had, then we might have won by a fairly big margin because Manning may have pressed later in the game if down by two scores.

It's amazing isn't it? We really would have been competitive without the gambles.

I agree. But it's a good thing that our defense is, apparently, outperforming everyone's expectations, from doe dick CP poster to NFL HC.

The professional level is full of great athletes so it's hard to win on physical ability alone. The way to win is to put them off balance. Even if you don't get the onside kick, our next dozen opponents will be in the film room saying, "Now, watch for the onside kick", and that may win us a few yards on every kickoff.

On a related note, I like the fact that I can't always tell who's blitzing now. With Gunther's defenses, the QB would walk to the line, point out the blitzers, and then audible receivers to go into their area. Whether it was poor play design or poor execution, Gunther's blitzes never surprised anyone.

I'd much rather have the Chiefs be unpredictable than predictable.

All in all, we presented a very conservative game strategy. Again, I think that goes back to their confidence in Mike Cassjuice ... or lack therein.

I think he thought that we needed extra possessions (any way we could steal them) and that field goals weren't going to get it done.

Looking back, I'll bet he was somewhat surprised at the play of the defense, though ... one can only speculate as to whether he would make the same decisions knowing that we could hold the Mannings to zero (0) touchdowns until late in the game.

FAX

And I think what you will see in the future is that maybe Haley understands that better now, and might not be as likely to take those chances, and may take the points.

Haley has shown he's a guy that will go with what he's got. When our QB play gets better I'm sure his play calling will change. Right now, he's got a great defense and great ground game. I think you will see him scheme his game plans around that now until Cassel shows he can contribute better. Which is never.

I should add that the only thing I disliked about the 4th-down decision was putting the ball in Cassel's hands. In this case, give it to our best player, Charles, and not our weakest.

I was ok with a pass call but all Casshole had to do was throw it over the middle to the wide open fullback and not into triple coverage. The play call was fine, the QB just sucks nuts.

He's also demonstrated the ability to learn, improve, and grow. Highly valuable attributes in humans ... in my view.

FAX

Therefore, Haley should have NEVER put that opportunity into Cassel's inept hands.

Another example of trying to be too clever by half ... doing the unexpected, and all.

I mean, who would have thought that Mark Cassclamp would complete a 2-yard pass into the endzone? Nobody, that's who.

FAX

Well, with all respect that's due an highly knowledgeable person and exceptional poster with extraordinary skill and acumen, that's an assumption deal, right there, Mr. ChiTown.

For all we know, Weis made that call.

FAX

Yeah. I owe Haley some credit. He's done nothing but improve since last year's disaster crash test in head coaching. He's really playing to the strengths of the team, and limiting the exposure of the weaknesses. If they didn't have to put so much effort into neutralizing Cassel, we'd have a very complete football team.

Agree on that one.

On 4th and 2 from the Goal? That's the HC's call, and as a former OC, he was all over that play (especially during the timeout).

Yep, it was 4th and 2. There was no need to go to the end zone on that throw. Castille was wide open for at least a 1st down if not the touchdown. That is entirely on Cassell's lack of vision.

At some point to win games your QB HAS to make SOME plays. You can't hide him away the entire game either. The pass to Bowe is an example. He made that play, then Bowe dropped it. Cassel needs to make that play on the goalline. a handoff that close to the goalline with a stacked box doesn't give you a lot of chances either. Go back and look at the 3rd and short situations and what happened. We got stuffed.

Cassel has to make enough plays to at least keep the defense honest. Otherwise soon the ground game doesn't work either, and now you HAVE to throw the ball around and you take chances you don't want to. So yeah Cassel HAS to make some plays even if it has a chance to fail more than succeed.

Going for it was his call, sure.

But, the actual play call itself? Do you not think Weis was consulted?

FAX

Absolutely. Going into IND, common sense would certainly suggest the need for a lot of points and an extra possession or two.

And I agree that Haley seems flexible in his approach to coaching, which is refreshing.

If Bob Dole remembers correctly, Moeaki came open behind the target, as well.

Mark Castle seems to have a gift for finding the receiver that's triple-covered.

Note to Coach Haley:
Dial 1-800-BETS-OFF

Exactly. When you watch what happened, Indy clearly wasn't staying home at all. They had no respect at all for the possibility of an onside kick and we would have gotten the ball if it went 10 yards.

We might not be able to pull that trick off more than 1 or 2 more times this year, but at least our remaining opponents will stay home and not be in a big hurry to get back early to set up their blocks. 5 or 6 weeks from now, if we notice on our first kickoff that they aren't staying home, onside kick it again and keep doing it until they respect our kickoff unit.

If it was 4th and less than a yard it might be ok to go for it, but it was 4th and a long 2 from the 4 and you have to take the points in that situation.

Loved the call and loved the 4th down call.

I agree, calling out Herm AND Haley, one for being the guy who doesn't do it and one for being the guy who does, is stupid.

And then kick it a couple of times into the referee's eyeball!!! 'Cause we're FRIGGIN' CRAZY!!!

FAX

Yup yup. So I expect to see him play it a bit more close to the vest and take some gambles here and there. So I think we will see our offense be a bit predictable and conservative for a while unless something changes. Haley will try to win with his strengths and not fit round pegs into square holes.

Well said. I would take our current offensive scheming every time over LJ trying to play butt darts with our offensive lineman all day.

I think the play call came from Weis when they were huddled on the sideline. I think Haley had every opportunity to overrule and to know better than to leave that into Cassel's hands - especially when we were ABUSING them on the end run. Either way, the HC takes the fall on that one. Haley has had enough time with Matt to know that his decision-making (especially under pressure) is for shit. Put the ball into the running back's hands and let him take you to pay dirt.

I disagree, Mr. Spott. Hate to do it, but I must.

Look, normally the Mannings score about a billion points per game ... probably more like an average of 2 billion at home. At that juncture, there was every reason to believe that we were either going to go down in flames or have to score touchdowns in order to keep it close.

There was absolutely no reason to believe otherwise.

And, can we get a friggin' holding call, please? Can you just call one out of 10 or something? Jesus.

FAX

I don't disagree with this. Haley could have overruled, certainly. And both he and Giant Spikey Head Man well know that Mike Cassdrip is a moron and, likely, getting paid under the table by our foes to screw up our team.

But, like you, I agree that a running play would probably have worked. I was expecting it and we had been running strong to the left on that drive. Hell, Charles might have scored on that previous play where he was stripped of the ball .. that was the same drive, wasn't it?

Anyhow, the HC has to take the heat for the decision ... I agree. I'm just not sure he's going to overrule Giant Spikey Head Man on a deal like that.

FAX

Phew. I'm just glad that he didn't gamble to lose.

Don't forget his lack of throwing talent, and poor pocket awareness.

One thing I would point out is that the "unconventional 4th down call" is actually statistically the right move. It has a higher value of expected points. (Caveat -- I haven't checked this particular down-distance-field position scenario).

Sometimes the conservative move is just plain wrong. If you are saving money for retirement, putting all of your money in a savings account at the age of 20 is just a plain wrong move, even though it looks "conservative". Similarly if you automatically take the 3 points in that situation, when the expected value of going for it on fourth down is higher (say 4 points), then it is actually a decision that has a negative impact on winning, even though it is "conservative".

I disagreed,but understood fourth down, I will not say I dislike haley for this call. I liked the onside kick to start the game, shows faith in the defense. Haley basically said I believe we can do it, and if not, our D is good enough to stop them. I do enjoy the gambler in him, and have enjoyed the chances he takes, it is incredibly refreshing after the parade of, well, guess we have to call them coaches, we had before him.

Great points.

I hated the fourth down attempt and this is why:

1. We just held them to a field goal on a short field. That was huge. Our defense was playing well, so have a little faith in them.

2. Our offense had marched down the field on an excellent drive. No need to act like we can't do it again. Take the points. Sometimes conservative isn't a dirty word.


FTR I liked the onside to start.

I was surprised with the onside kick and thought maybe Haley was trying to rattle the Colts by letting them know right away that the Chiefs would be unpredictable. Against the 49ers, it was quite the chess match and it worked; San Fransisco's coaching staff got owned. When KC went for it on 4th down and didn't make the TD, that was one call I didn't like. I think tying the score would have been a good thing at that point. Sure, the lead is better, but putting the first points on the board for the team looked like the way to go to me. When Cassel threw into quadruple coverage on the other attempt, I could see he was locked in on Bowe the whole time. If he was quick to assess the situation, couldn't he have run the ball and at least made a first down? Seeing four men converge on Bowe should have made him think, "I saw how many came in to rush, plus four... someone is open or I have space to run..." and then do it! If I recall, it was 4th and 2, and not 4th and goal? It seems that the closer to the goal line, the less creative Cassel becomes.

he gambled .. it didn't work .. his defense finally ran out of gas .. blame is on the offense again .....

I liked the onside kick to start the game despite the fact that we didn't get it. And frankly, I don't have a problem with going for it on 4th and goal from the 4 or whatever. If I were the coach, I would have taken the 3 points. But I won't rail on Haley for being aggressive. I love that. It is a very refreshing change from the last idiot that we had coaching our team.

The onside kick, I get that.

But with this offensive personnel not taking the points early in a game after stopping the Colts in the red zone, don't like that. That to me is understand your personnel, if this was 2003 I'd have said go for every 4th and 2 on the other side of the 50, but we don't have that personnel now.

*agrees with TheGuardian throughout this thread*
*feels weird about it*

At the time I was "what the hell, tie the game"

After reflection, I get that he felt we weren't gonna score many points and this was an opportunity that we needed to capitalize on to have a chance.

If you ask me that play right there lies the game, we make it and we score I think we'd win. One could also say the dropped pass by clifford franklin was equally important.

I just have 0 confidence in Matt Cassel to make that play, so that affects my view of it.

I like the aggressiveness on both the onside and the 4th down call. I just question the actual play call on the 4th down. We should have given it to Charles or Jones.

If he wanted to do the onside because he thought he could catch the Colts napping, I'm perfectly fine with that, even if it didn't work out.

If he did it because teams that tried it won 6 and lost 5 other times, he should be shot in the ****ing head with a bullet made from Scott Pioli's ground up body, because he's an unsalvageable reerun.

I was good with the onside kick. Everyone in my house was screaming about it, but I thought it was brilliant. Win some, lose some. I was okay with the 4th down decision, but irate that they put the ball in Matt Casshole's hands. They should've known better. He missed 2 open receivers, and didn't have the zip to get it through to the guy that was triple covered. If you're going to take those shots, put the ****ing ball in the guy's hands that gives you the best chance to convert, FFS.

I agree with this...my only problem with the 4th down play was who they were trying to get the ball to. I understand trying to get into the endzone, but we could have gotten a first without getting in too, so if Cassel is going to throw, he should have had some check down routes that could pick up the first and keep the drive alive.

Agree 100%

On that drive we had runs for 2yds, 7yds, 5yds, 11yds, 3yds, 3yds, 6yds, and 2yds. We were stuffed for a loss, but i believe that was negated by an offsides penalty. They had no answer for the run to the left, and we decided to place our 4th and 2 fate in Cassel's hands. I hate that call.

I like coaches with balls.

You don't do it because of personnel you do it because the situation, being on the road in Indy against an offensive powerhouse, dictates that you do it. You don't know that your defense is going to hold them to field goals all day. So you play for big points. The situation, not the players, dictate that you take those chances.

Yep. Why gamble when you don't need to?

Show a little faith in your players to do the job you've asked them to do. If it some point during the game they show they can't, then be aggressive.

Personally I love it that's why the Saints won the SB. I appreciate the Cahoney's on Haley

Going for it on 4th does show faith in his players to the job. So does the onside kick.

the kick was going to work, if our ****ing kicker doesn't shank it


them's the breaks.....i think haley will eventually figure out the risk/reward scenario's with more experience...and i think he believes he has to do these things with our weak offense...maybe after this game he'll trust our defense more

but i like his generally aggressive attitude, and the fact that he is always thinking about a way to give us an edge...

Haley is coaching much like Sean Peyton of the Saints. He is a young agressive coach trying to come up with ways to win games. I have no problem with it on a learning curve. I like the attitude and agressiveness he brings to a much needed team that had no heart under Herman Munster.

Other than losing our perfect record at 3-0 we are a team that doesn't have the pressure to win games each week like the Colts, we can be as aggressive as we want to upset the bigdogs and do whatever it takes to goush them with a play that is not the norm. He would have been a gunius if the plays worked and he would have been loved even more. I think he is doing a damn good job so far for his second year as a HC. The players have to execute the playes better. I would have settled for the three points, but against Peyton Freaking Manning I totally understand go for 7.

It's not that hard to go for it when you have Drew Brees.

THAT right there was the killer. You DO NOT place the ball in Cat Massel****s hands on 4th and anything...