Chiefs Haley gambled to win - Page 4

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.

boogblaster · 10-11-2010, 12:23 PM

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

**Lzen** · 10-11-2010, 12:51 PM

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.

Mecca · 10-11-2010, 01:08 PM

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.

**Reaper16** · 10-11-2010, 01:09 PM

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

**ShortRoundChief** · 10-11-2010, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

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.

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.

Mecca · 10-11-2010, 01:14 PM

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

KC native · 10-11-2010, 01:15 PM

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.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 10-11-2010, 01:41 PM

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.

**Mr. Flopnuts** · 10-11-2010, 02:06 PM

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.

mnchiefsguy · 10-11-2010, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

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.

Meanstreak · 10-11-2010, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

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.

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.

Fritz88 · 10-11-2010, 02:21 PM

I like coaches with balls.

TheGuardian · 10-11-2010, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

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.

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.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 10-11-2010, 02:41 PM

Quote:

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.

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.

thigpenfan · 10-11-2010, 02:52 PM

Quote:

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.

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

10-11-2010, 12:23 PM	#46
boogblaster MVP Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Verdigris Valley Campsite Casino cash: $10004900	he gambled .. it didn't work .. his defense finally ran out of gas .. blame is on the offense again ..... __________________ WR or S please
Posts: 10,305

10-11-2010, 12:51 PM	#47
Lzen Banded Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Oz Casino cash: $-659308	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. __________________ Conversation would be vastly improved by the constant use of four simple words: I do not know.
Posts: 42,483

10-11-2010, 01:08 PM	#48
Mecca Hockey Town Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Casino cash: $-692950	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.
Posts: 115,364

10-11-2010, 01:14 PM	#51
Mecca Hockey Town Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Casino cash: $-692950	I just have 0 confidence in Matt Cassel to make that play, so that affects my view of it.
Posts: 115,364

10-11-2010, 01:15 PM	#52
KC native Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Fort Worth, TX Casino cash: $10049239	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.
Posts: 24,946

10-11-2010, 01:41 PM	#53
'Hamas' Jenkins Now you've pissed me off! Join Date: Jan 2006 Casino cash: $7149572	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. __________________ "When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”--Abraham Lincoln
Posts: 75,083

10-11-2010, 02:21 PM	#57
Fritz88 Custom User Title Join Date: Nov 2008 Casino cash: $8505943	I like coaches with balls.
Posts: 12,706