Henning Out...

It was a cause, nonetheless, and he was in charge of the entire offense.

I don't think John Fox is wrong. I don't think John Fox is the type man to scapegoat a professional because of fans, Delhomme, or anyone else you want to scapegoat for Dan Henning's firing. It's either fired or not fired, and whether you feel it or not, he earned it and it's no one else's fault.

 

Is Keyshawn related to John f'n Kerry?

 

Haskell was good at what he did. He didn't gameplan the 99 team, and he/Musgrave/Seifert each had a hand in playcalling. Musgrave wasn't good at doing all of it, either. That was the team's mistake, or even just outright Seifert's if he's the one that pushed Haskell out without a reason.

As for the group, I don't think any of them were good enough for mention as above average.

 

Being good at what he did is the best this team has come up with so far on O. Lets hope for better with the next guy.

EFFECTIVE. NOT PREDICTABLE. Put our guys in position to make plays, instead of putting the D in the best position to stop us.

 

Well, what I mean by that is "good at what he did" isn't "he did everything for the offense." He didn't gameplan, and that's a pretty fair portion of the job. He didn't call all the plays. He administrated the offense, he ran the practices, he helped coach players, and he was one of the playcallers. It wasn't all him.


But certainly, yes. We need to be able to go against weakness better, we need to find a number of things that work and have less standing around waiting to punt if what we did initially didn't work. Not getting the run to work, two years in a row, is a problem. Now, adding in the inability to get Smith the ball consistently, that's mortal.

 

I understood it the first time you said it. Sorry my reply may have implied otherwise. Let me try again. Haskell, in addition to the things you mentioned, had some common sense. He didn't hamstring the O by stubbornly doing dumb things, or by refusing to do some good things. That doesn't make him a good OC, or a complete OC. It just makes him better than the other guys we've had, even though he didn't do it all.

But if I give up my point and disqualify him, it just goes to show that we've had a poor run of OCs in the Panther's history.

 

I get you, we just disagree. We shouldn't have let him leave, or made him leave, or whatever it ended up being - but he was just part of it. His 1998 team wasn't that good.

But yeah, in the grand scheme of things, we've not had an incredible offensive mind.

 

In all my antiHenning rant, I forgot to mention that. That was the most important of all.

And I totally agree with your other post. No, it wasnt all Hennings fault. He may not have been the biggest problem. But if he's *A* problem, and there are alternatives available, then he has to go.

Why don't we dump Jake now? Its alot harder to replace a QB than it is an OC.

 

I agree that Henning did not deserve being fired, but I don't agree that this move was made to spare Jake. Jake is in BIG trouble. Now that Henning is gone, I seriously doubt he is guaranteed the starting job. A new OC may bring his own QB with him. I really don't think anyone other than Steve Smith is safe. I would like to think Williams will be a major part of next years running game, but who knows at this point.

 

Yep. We also had a different cast of guys on the whole offense. Davis, Muhammad, ect.. Thats why I always thought the whole "we used the same plays in 03" thing was retarded.