Some Haley #'s

Lizard72 · Feb 12, 2012

TheWanderer said:

yet, still . . . the cardinals didn't want him back: http://www.azcentral.com/sports/cardina ... nhunt.html

i'm always wary of an employee who isn't wanted back by his former employer. it looks like they were willing to take him on in a diminished capacity but wanted nothing to do with him as an OC.

the final sentence of the article seems to suggest that kurt warner made todd haley a coveted coach.

by all accounts, haley was not very well liked in the organization. an OC is not exactly a position where it's good to have a polarizing personality. as i said before, i don't think haley works well with others and i fear a major personality clash with benjamin todd.
Click to expand...

That article is all speculation. "Some experts belive", which ones? Nothing in there definitively says this is what we were told by the parties involved. It's a PR piece that's trying to prop up a franchise that built a team to get a stadium and then dismantled that team.
Not to mention a team that is built largely by pieces of the Steeler organization and is desperately trying to compare itself to the Steelers. Despite having only been to one SB.

GB_Steel · Feb 12, 2012

diehardsteel said:

GB_Steel said:

My concern is not with number of targets, but rather how those targets are utilized. So Haley's offenses the last three years targeted the RB 2.5 times more per game than BA's with the Steelers. Not important unless those were more than mere QB dumpoffs to the RB in the flat or to the TE safety valve on a short hook pattern. What would be impressive is if those targets were designed routes that targeted the defense's weakness. The last thing I want our OC to do is to track numbers; I just want Haley to strategize and attack the defense with intelligent game plans and evolving in-game adjustments. I want offensive balance, but not in the numbers, like a 50/50 run/pass split; I want balance in that the defense doesn't know what's coming.

I'd be happy with 100 targets to the TE/RB's if those targets were meaningful and kept the defense honest.
Click to expand...

Disagree GB. Even if those were "mere dump offs", each one of those may save Ben from a sack and may possibly pick up some yards rather than losing it. So even if they weren't necessarily a designed route, it would still be better than what we have been getting - Ben tackled, possibly injured, maybe a turnover, and lost yardage.
Click to expand...

You're right, but I see that as a result of the QB actually using the checkdowns (which BA had) rather than the OC purposefully designing plays for the TE/RB's that target the defense. Absolutely right though in that those dumpoffs have importance in extending Ben's career by keeping him healthy.

HugeSnack · Feb 12, 2012

edog55 said:

PWP said:

Both Mendenhall and Redman are every down RB'S and can excell in the passing game.....Different styles as 1 is a open field runner and the other is a Banger with some open field ability,but both are excellent in blitz PU and this should keep the Playbook wide open while there on the field...
Click to expand...

I disagree with you on one thing, Mendenhall!! I hope that they don't bring him back, especially now, because of his injury. I hope that Redman is the starting Back and that they do one of two things;
Click to expand...

Which part of what PWP said about Mendenhall do you disagree with? It all rings true to me.

Do you really hope Mendenhall doesn't come back? I know he has a serious injury, but if he comes back from that injury 100% (and I acknowledge that is a big "if"), do you really think we'd be better off without him? I don't understand that. I especially don't understand the concept of replacing him with Tolbert, but that's a separate thing...

Log in or Sign up

Some Haley #'s

Lizard72 TSF Supporter

GB_Steel Well-Known Member

HugeSnack Well-Known Member

Share This Page