Chiefs Haley gambled to win - Page 2

TheGuardian · 10-11-2010, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Haley researched game-opening onside kicks back to 2000 and found the team that tried it won six of 11 games.

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.

TheGuardian · 10-11-2010, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

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.

FAX · 10-11-2010, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGuardian

... Haley has shown he's a guy that will go with what he's got. ....

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

FAX

**ChiTown** · 10-11-2010, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGuardian

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.

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

FAX · 10-11-2010, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

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.

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

FAX · 10-11-2010, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiTown

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

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

Fish · 10-11-2010, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGuardian

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.

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.

**DaFace** · 10-11-2010, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

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.

Agree on that one.

**ChiTown** · 10-11-2010, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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).

Hydrae · 10-11-2010, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGuardian

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.

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.

TheGuardian · 10-11-2010, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiTown

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

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.

FAX · 10-11-2010, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiTown

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).

Going for it was his call, sure.

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

FAX

**DeezNutz** · 10-11-2010, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FAX

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGuardian

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.

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.

**Bob Dole** · 10-11-2010, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGuardian

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.

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.

**gblowfish** · 10-11-2010, 11:05 AM

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

**alnorth** · 10-11-2010, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man

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.

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.

10-11-2010, 11:05 AM	#29
gblowfish Be Kind To Your Pets Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Glorious Independence, MO Casino cash: $16886178 VARSITY	Note to Coach Haley: Dial 1-800-BETS-OFF
Posts: 41,016