Quote:
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501
How about addressing the points I make instead of completely changing direction. Like I've said, for all the arguments we make about the importance of a franchise QB, why are we so insistent that Haley win without one? It's pretty simple. The Chiefs get blown out a lot because when they fall 2-3 TDs behind, they have to rely on Cassel and have to ditch the running game.
You know what? Aaron Rodgers doesn't get blown out because when his defense falls behind, he picks up the pace. The Chiefs don't have someone like that. Other than Indianapolis, how many games can you remember where Matt Cassel picked up his defense?
|
It's this one, single, simple statement of fact that has me bumfuzzled.
And, the more I read about how Haley is the Devil, the more fuzzled my bum becomes. Assuming that these people want the Chiefs to succeed, they should realize that Haley (or whomever the coach might be) has to adjust our approach to the game in order to fit the scheme to Cassel's abilities ... and those abilities are very limited.
The result is a collage of risk-taking, aberrant play-calls, tired defenses, runs to nowhere, and dinky-dunks.
Not to mention the overall malaise that is bound to affect your locker room when the players know full well that we are A) Utterly unable to maintain a consistent offensive attack and B) Come from behind.
Charles saved our asses last season, but without him, Haley has once again been charged with making chicken salad out of walrus feces and is criticized for the effort. It's too bad for a lot of reasons ... not the least of which is that Haley will likely be very successful in this league as a head coach someday ... but probably not here. And that's a shame.
FAX