Haley gambled to win

[TheGuardian]

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.

[Mr. Arrowhead]

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

[FAX]

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

[DaFace]

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.

[King_Chief_Fan]

Originally Posted by TheGuardian

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

[KCUnited]

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

[DeezNutz]

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.

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by FAX

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'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).

[TheGuardian]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

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.

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.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

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.

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

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by TheGuardian

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.

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.

[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.

[FAX]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

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.

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

[TheGuardian]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

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.

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.

[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.