Chiefs Haley versus McDaniels - Page 5

SenselessChiefsFan · 11-30-2011, 08:42 AM

For those that think I love Cassel, I don't. I just think that Haley isn't nearly the offensive coordinator that McDaniels is. I think the biggest reason that many on here think that Orton is better is because he had two years with McDaniels while the Chiefs had Haley, then Weis, and now Haley again.

Orton and Cassel have both struggled this year.

Haley had a great offense in Arizona with Kurt Warner. McDaniels had a great offense with Tom Brady, but he also has had good offenses with Kyle Orton and Matt Cassel....ahem.... Kyle Orton and Matt Cassel.

In 2007, Haley's first as a offensive coordinator, there is no comparison. McDaniels had a record setting offense at the top of the league. Haley had the 12th best offense. Winner: McDaniels. Haley might get some credit here since he was in his first year with the Cardinals. But, The Pats set the world on fire and set records and were just so much better, that you have to give the nod to McDaniels.

In 2008, Haley had the fourth rated offense. He had Kurt Warner, Larry Fitzgerald, Anquan Boldin, and Breaston. Granted, the running backs weren't great. Edgerin James wasn't quite what he once was and they had Tim Hightower.

In 2008, McDaniels had the fifth rated offense. He had Matt Cassel, Randy Moss and Wes Welker. And, believe it or not, the running backs in NE were even MORE underwhelming. Lamont Jordon, Maroney, Sammy Morris.

2008 edge: Despite Arizona ranking one spot higher, it would be foolish not to notice the distinct advantage in talent around Haley. so the edge goes to McDaniels.

2009- Daniels had the 15th best offense. He had Orton, Marshall and Royal. He didn't have much of a running threat.

In 2009, Haley had the 25th best offense. He had Matt Cassel, D-Bowe, and Charles. Yeah, he didn't give Charles a ton of time until the end of the season. Who's fault is that? Who is the coach that saw JC on the field every day and still decided to play LJ?

In 2010, Haley had Weis as offensive coordinator. The Chiefs were 12th in offense. The Broncos were 13th. The Chiefs had better offensive talent. Jones was still playing well last year, JC was out of this world. They had D-Bowe and Moeaki as well. Luckily, Haley had Weis to know how to use the talent. With Weis, they managed to be one spot higher than the Broncos.

McDaniels had Orton, B LLoyd, Eddie Royal. Yet, he managed to get to the 13th ranking.

2011. Finally, a year that Haley can probably claim as better than McDaniels. The Chiefs are 27th in offense. The Rams are 29th.

Now, lets look at talent. Matt Cassel versus Sam Bradford. Bradford is the obvious answer. However, a second year guy going into a new system, and an offseason with no training camp. Again, Bradford is the better guy, but overall situation? Haley might have the better overall situation. Cassel and even Palko had been with the Chiefs for a full year.

Both McDaniels and Haley have had to have two games played with their backup QB.

Jackson is clearly superior to anything that the Chiefs have in the backfield since JC went down.

However, look at the talent on the outside and you will see the Chiefs have Bowe, Breaston and Baldwin..... heck, even McCluster would probably be one of the Rams top two WR's. Not kidding. They have Brandon Lloyd and Brandon Gibson. That is their top two WR's.

So, even conceding that they have the best QB and RB in St. Louis, you look at the fact that McDaniels came to a brand new team without an offseason and is only 2 spots worse than the team that Haley has been building for three years.

McDaniels was a crappy personnel guy. I concede that fact every day of the week. But, when it comes down to x's and o's. He outshines Haley by a huge margin.

I think Haley may be the better overall head coach, but from a purely offensive creativity and coordination standpoint. Haley is far inferior to McDaniels.

And any comparison between Orton and Cassel has to be based in this reality.

And, please understand, I am not a huge Cassel fan. I want him gone. But, this idea that Orton is an upgrade is fools gold. They are both mediocre QB's that have looked good under McDaniels. And, in Cassel's case, at least decent under Weis.

jd1020 · 12-01-2011, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCharles1981

Why? Because I spoke an ounce of truth you disagreed with? By the way, eight of the last sixteen Superbowl MVP's have been non-QB's. What does that entail? Just over 50% of all the Superbowl MVP's have been quarterbacks.

This tells me that although a player that's not a QB can have a tremendous impact on any given day, QB is still, by a wide margin, the MVP(osition).

WhiteWhale · 12-01-2011, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

I don't remember writing that. If you could, do me a favor and quote the post that I did that in and just bold that part for me.

Thanks.

Hate is a strong word for my feelings towards Cassel. I would like him replaced. I would like a franchise QB. But, to excuse Haley's shortcomings because of Cassel is foolish. Weis and McDaniels have proven that you can have a decent,if not great, offense with Cassel.

That isn't to say I want Cassel here or even McDaniels. (other than as OC) It is just to point out how inept Haley has been.

It isn't like Haley has no say in personnel. Cassel may not be his ideal QB, but, if he hate him as much as this board thinks....If he really felt like he couldn't have an offense that he wanted with Cassel..... Cassel wouldn't be here.

You think the difference between Cassel in 2007 and 2009 is Weis and McDaniels?

See, I'm in the 'talent wins football games' camp. KC succeeded offensively because of Jamaal Charles. Since Haley arrived (meaning Cassel's career in KC) Kc averages 20 PPG with Charles in the lineup. We average 13 PPG without him.

Charles makes a bigger difference than an OC.

1 good WR being thrown to by a garbage QB is what we have on offense. That's it.

Same thing in NE. McDaniels didn't make Cassel look good. Moss and Welker did.

Talent wins games in this league.

SenselessChiefsFan · 12-01-2011, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCharles1981

Nope. The New England Patriots proved that an offense can do mediocre in the Superbowl, and still win with a game ending field goal, which they did twice. Remember the Tampa Bay Buccaneers' SB win against the Oakland Raiders? Their defense intercepted Rich Gannon 5 TIMES, with three of them being returned for touchdowns. Brad Johnson is not what led the Bucs to the Superbowl, it was their scorching hot defense that did.

A wise man once said that an offense wins seasonal games, but defenses win championships.

The part that you are leaving out is the wise man said this a long time ago.

Now, at one time, this was true. However, you really need to have a balanced team to win a Championship. Given the new rules, even a great defense will give up points to a great offense. You have to at least be able to keep up offensively.

Also, the Bucs defense was the same for a long time. It was great. Tony Dungy was the head coach. The offense stunk. Gruden came, and suddenly, they win a Super Bowl. The defense was actually not quite as good, but the offense..... the offense was much better.

Oh, and the Pats were mediocre on both sides of the ball. They were the first team in the history of the league not be rated in the top ten in either offense or defense and still win the Super Bowl. So, you could use that team to argue that you don't need an elite defense either.

WhiteWhale · 12-01-2011, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

The part that you are leaving out is the wise man said this a long time ago.

Now, at one time, this was true. However, you really need to have a balanced team to win a Championship. Given the new rules, even a great defense will give up points to a great offense. You have to at least be able to keep up offensively.

Also, the Bucs defense was the same for a long time. It was great. Tony Dungy was the head coach. The offense stunk. Gruden came, and suddenly, they win a Super Bowl. The defense was actually not quite as good, but the offense..... the offense was much better.

Oh, and the Pats were mediocre on both sides of the ball. They were the first team in the history of the league not be rated in the top ten in either offense or defense and still win the Super Bowl. So, you could use that team to argue that you don't need an elite defense either.

The bucs had their best defenses in history in 2002. They were ranked #1 in nearly every category. The offensive production barely changed. They actually averaged fewer points than they did in 2001 under Dungy.

Monte Kiffin was the genius behind that D. Not Dungy.

Point being... get a quality QB or have a defense that ranks in the top 5 of all time.

One of these is easier to achieve than the other.

listopencil · 12-01-2011, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

This year, Orton looked like the QB that he was in Chicago. ie: Orton looked like he did every other year that he wasn't being coached by McDaniels.

But, I am SURE, that this is all just coincidence.

Like I said, too many variables:

1) Defenses tend to be ahead of Offenses to start the season.

2) Our line pass blocked poorly at the beginning of the year.

3) The Broncos tried as hard as they could to keep the pass O that McD put in place but we do have a mostly new coaching staff.

4) Our WR corps regressed with Lloyd being the only consistent target and Decker improving over time.

5) Orton had Tebowmania breathing down his neck, and it's possible that Orton just shit himself under the pressure.

So yeah, I think McD leaving had a negative effect on Orton. They had built a strong working relationship. When Orton first came to the Broncos he said something like, "I have learned more in six months being coached by McD than I learned in six years previously." But there was more going on there.

SenselessChiefsFan · 12-01-2011, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale

You think the difference between Cassel in 2007 and 2009 is Weis and McDaniels?

See, I'm in the 'talent wins football games' camp. KC succeeded offensively because of Jamaal Charles. Since Haley arrived (meaning Cassel's career in KC) Kc averages 20 PPG with Charles in the lineup. We average 13 PPG without him.

Charles makes a bigger difference than an OC.

1 good WR being thrown to by a garbage QB is what we have on offense. That's it.

Same thing in NE. McDaniels didn't make Cassel look good. Moss and Welker did.

Talent wins games in this league.

Charles was here in 2009 for the whole season. The Chiefs scored 18.4 points.

In 2010, the Chiefs scored 22.9. Again, JC was here the whole season.

In 2011, the Chiefs are averaging 15.65 points per game with Cassel in.

JC played the first game in which the Chiefs scored seven points.

As far as Moss/Welker. Yes, they are great. But, McDaniels was able to get over 25 points a game out of a Cassel led offense. You think he would struggle this much with Cassel along with Bowe, Breaston, Baldwin, and McCluster?

Heck, McCluster would probably look like a legit second round pick if we had McDaniels calling the plays instead of Staley Haley.

Heck, look at what he was able to do with Brandon freaking LLoyd and Eddie Royal.

So, to sum it up, yes, I think that Haley is the biggest problem on this offense.

That isn't completely true. I think that Haley doesn't have enough time to be HC and OC and I don't think he can work with a good offensive coordinator.

WhiteWhale · 12-01-2011, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by listopencil

Like I said, too many variables:

1) Defenses tend to be ahead of Offenses to start the season.

2) Our line pass blocked poorly at the beginning of the year.

3) The Broncos tried as hard as they could to keep the pass O that McD put in place but we do have a mostly new coaching staff.

4) Our WR corps regressed with Lloyd being the only consistent target and Decker improving over time.

5) Orton had Tebowmania breathing down his neck, and it's possible that Orton just shit himself under the pressure.

So yeah, I think McD leaving had a negative effect on Orton. They had built a strong working relationship. When Orton first came to the Broncos he said something like, "I have learned more in six months being coached by McD than I learned in six years previously." But there was more going on there.

I would not try to explain the concept of 'correlation does not equal causation". People on message boards like linear thinking.

SenselessChiefsFan · 12-01-2011, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale

The bucs had their best defenses in history in 2002. They were ranked #1 in nearly every category. The offensive production barely changed. They actually averaged fewer points than they did in 2001 under Dungy.

Monte Kiffin was the genius behind that D. Not Dungy.

Point being... get a quality QB or have a defense that ranks in the top 5 of all time.

One of these is easier to achieve than the other.

I stand corrected. I remember the offense being better than the year before. Maybe that was more towards the end of the year when the Bucs were coming together more.

The point still stands that they had a great defense for a long time, and it wasn't until Gruden was hired as the head coach (offensive minded Coach) that they were able to get to the Super Bowl.

I have not doubt that the opponent in the Super Bowl had much to do with their actual winning of the Championship.

SenselessChiefsFan · 12-01-2011, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale

I would not try to explain the concept of 'correlation does not equal causation". People on message boards like linear thinking.

As fans, on the oustside of the locker room, coaching and player meetings, we are left with an ability to examine correlation.

Sure, we can attempt to look at causation, but any such attempt would be woefully incomplete.

Also, as fans with opinions, we tend to argue correlation concepts when they favor us, and causation comments when we are trying to refute an argument.

Honestly, the reality is that none of us have it right. Not 100% anyway. Heck, the coaches themselves don't have it right 100%.

This isn't like putting together a puzzle. Football players are human. All kinds of things affect their performance.

While I agree with you, that correlation does not equal causation, I would further state that any examination of causation without all the facts is futile.

WhiteWhale · 12-01-2011, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

Charles was here in 2009 for the whole season. The Chiefs scored 18.4 points.

In 2010, the Chiefs scored 22.9. Again, JC was here the whole season.

In 2011, the Chiefs are averaging 15.65 points per game with Cassel in.

JC played the first game in which the Chiefs scored seven points.

As far as Moss/Welker. Yes, they are great. But, McDaniels was able to get over 25 points a game out of a Cassel led offense. You think he would struggle this much with Cassel along with Bowe, Breaston, Baldwin, and McCluster?

Heck, McCluster would probably look like a legit second round pick if we had McDaniels calling the plays instead of Staley Haley.

Heck, look at what he was able to do with Brandon freaking LLoyd and Eddie Royal.

So, to sum it up, yes, I think that Haley is the biggest problem on this offense.

That isn't completely true. I think that Haley doesn't have enough time to be HC and OC and I don't think he can work with a good offensive coordinator.

Charles barely played until the games against the Jags. Obviously him being on the bench is not what I meant. I'm rather disappointed I have to explain that.

The numbers are there. 20 PPG with charles, 13 PPG without him.

Using him for 2 carries or returning kicks does not count in my eyes. Sorry champ. Charles was a difference maker.

McCluster is not good. You guys need to just accept that he's a slow 5-7 RB who can't break or elude tackles. It's not coaching. He's just not that good. He's a shitty version of Dante Hall. A smaller, slower, less elusive version of Hall. A gadget player without the talent to fill that role. He's not an impact player. He's proven that over the course of 2 seasons. We get him in space over and over and he does NOTHING.

Again, you think the NFL is all about coaching. I'm still sticking with talent. KC would have won no more than 6 games without Charles last season and Weis AND Cassel would have been terrible.

SenselessChiefsFan · 12-01-2011, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by listopencil

Like I said, too many variables:

1) Defenses tend to be ahead of Offenses to start the season.

2) Our line pass blocked poorly at the beginning of the year.

3) The Broncos tried as hard as they could to keep the pass O that McD put in place but we do have a mostly new coaching staff.

4) Our WR corps regressed with Lloyd being the only consistent target and Decker improving over time.

5) Orton had Tebowmania breathing down his neck, and it's possible that Orton just shit himself under the pressure.

So yeah, I think McD leaving had a negative effect on Orton. They had built a strong working relationship. When Orton first came to the Broncos he said something like, "I have learned more in six months being coached by McD than I learned in six years previously." But there was more going on there.

I hope Orton has retained what he learned from McDaniels. I doubt he will get similar coaching up from Haley.

listopencil · 12-01-2011, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

As fans, on the oustside of the locker room, coaching and player meetings, we are left with an ability to examine correlation.

Sure, we can attempt to look at causation, but any such attempt would be woefully incomplete.

Also, as fans with opinions, we tend to argue correlation concepts when they favor us, and causation comments when we are trying to refute an argument.

Honestly, the reality is that none of us have it right. Not 100% anyway. Heck, the coaches themselves don't have it right 100%.

This isn't like putting together a puzzle. Football players are human. All kinds of things affect their performance.

While I agree with you, that correlation does not equal causation, I would further state that any examination of causation without all the facts is futile.

I just purchased a "Forever Lazy".

It comes with a zippered butt flap. I am now going to go attempt to take a shit while wearing it. I will get back to this thread when I am finished.

L.A. Chieffan · 12-01-2011, 10:46 AM

bill muir is angry at this thread

Hammock Parties · 12-01-2011, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

I hope Orton has retained what he learned from McDaniels. I doubt he will get similar coaching up from Haley.

Haley is not going to be the ****ing coach next year so who cares?

SenselessChiefsFan · 12-01-2011, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale

Charles barely played until the games against the Jags. Obviously him being on the bench is not what I meant. I'm rather disappointed I have to explain that.

Part of being a coach and an offensive coordinator is using the talent to the best of their abilities.

JC riding the bench is on Haley. To think that you would use this as an excuse FOR Haley is astounding.

11-30-2011, 08:42 AM
SenselessChiefsFan MVP Join Date: Nov 2008 Casino cash: $10005450	Haley versus McDaniels For those that think I love Cassel, I don't. I just think that Haley isn't nearly the offensive coordinator that McDaniels is. I think the biggest reason that many on here think that Orton is better is because he had two years with McDaniels while the Chiefs had Haley, then Weis, and now Haley again. Orton and Cassel have both struggled this year. Haley had a great offense in Arizona with Kurt Warner. McDaniels had a great offense with Tom Brady, but he also has had good offenses with Kyle Orton and Matt Cassel....ahem.... Kyle Orton and Matt Cassel. In 2007, Haley's first as a offensive coordinator, there is no comparison. McDaniels had a record setting offense at the top of the league. Haley had the 12th best offense. Winner: McDaniels. Haley might get some credit here since he was in his first year with the Cardinals. But, The Pats set the world on fire and set records and were just so much better, that you have to give the nod to McDaniels. In 2008, Haley had the fourth rated offense. He had Kurt Warner, Larry Fitzgerald, Anquan Boldin, and Breaston. Granted, the running backs weren't great. Edgerin James wasn't quite what he once was and they had Tim Hightower. In 2008, McDaniels had the fifth rated offense. He had Matt Cassel, Randy Moss and Wes Welker. And, believe it or not, the running backs in NE were even MORE underwhelming. Lamont Jordon, Maroney, Sammy Morris. 2008 edge: Despite Arizona ranking one spot higher, it would be foolish not to notice the distinct advantage in talent around Haley. so the edge goes to McDaniels. 2009- Daniels had the 15th best offense. He had Orton, Marshall and Royal. He didn't have much of a running threat. In 2009, Haley had the 25th best offense. He had Matt Cassel, D-Bowe, and Charles. Yeah, he didn't give Charles a ton of time until the end of the season. Who's fault is that? Who is the coach that saw JC on the field every day and still decided to play LJ? In 2010, Haley had Weis as offensive coordinator. The Chiefs were 12th in offense. The Broncos were 13th. The Chiefs had better offensive talent. Jones was still playing well last year, JC was out of this world. They had D-Bowe and Moeaki as well. Luckily, Haley had Weis to know how to use the talent. With Weis, they managed to be one spot higher than the Broncos. McDaniels had Orton, B LLoyd, Eddie Royal. Yet, he managed to get to the 13th ranking. 2011. Finally, a year that Haley can probably claim as better than McDaniels. The Chiefs are 27th in offense. The Rams are 29th. Now, lets look at talent. Matt Cassel versus Sam Bradford. Bradford is the obvious answer. However, a second year guy going into a new system, and an offseason with no training camp. Again, Bradford is the better guy, but overall situation? Haley might have the better overall situation. Cassel and even Palko had been with the Chiefs for a full year. Both McDaniels and Haley have had to have two games played with their backup QB. Jackson is clearly superior to anything that the Chiefs have in the backfield since JC went down. However, look at the talent on the outside and you will see the Chiefs have Bowe, Breaston and Baldwin..... heck, even McCluster would probably be one of the Rams top two WR's. Not kidding. They have Brandon Lloyd and Brandon Gibson. That is their top two WR's. So, even conceding that they have the best QB and RB in St. Louis, you look at the fact that McDaniels came to a brand new team without an offseason and is only 2 spots worse than the team that Haley has been building for three years. McDaniels was a crappy personnel guy. I concede that fact every day of the week. But, when it comes down to x's and o's. He outshines Haley by a huge margin. I think Haley may be the better overall head coach, but from a purely offensive creativity and coordination standpoint. Haley is far inferior to McDaniels. And any comparison between Orton and Cassel has to be based in this reality. And, please understand, I am not a huge Cassel fan. I want him gone. But, this idea that Orton is an upgrade is fools gold. They are both mediocre QB's that have looked good under McDaniels. And, in Cassel's case, at least decent under Weis.
Posts: 5,540

12-01-2011, 10:46 AM	#73
L.A. Chieffan PLAY GOOD FOOTBALL Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: American Gardens Building Casino cash: $2688654	bill muir is angry at this thread
Posts: 17,400