Dan Henning

Henning had a say in these guys. But, having a 2006 team that was pretty much what he wanted to field, and that team not being that good, still falls on him.

 

We shifted to building a power running OL after Henning left. I am not sure he asked for a finese OL. It seems like a power running OL would be a better fit for what he likes to do on offense.

How much blame we can place on Henning for the talent we had in the running game when he was here is questionable. One thing is for sure though he never had as much talent then as we have now.

In 2006 he wanted Keyshawn, I am sure, and that did not really work but I am not sure who else we got that you can lay at his feet.

 

He was responsible for the offense, so sure, I'd lay a good bit of it there. You have to develop backs, linemen for you to be able to run. We really haven't put any more since, than we did before. By 06, we'd put a huge contract into Davis, a 2nd and a transition into Foster, a 2 into Sheltie, and a 1 into Williams. Even with the crappy 07 line and its total lack of running ability, and with Foster leading the way, we immediately upgraded running the football.

 

Offensive Coordinators do not have control over personnel. They may have input but to say he is responsible for Davis and Foster not being as good as Williams and Stewart is reaching. I can not help but think Henning would get more out of the talent we have right now than Davidson has been able to get.

 

I'd say his media-aired feud with Shelton didn't help, but not getting anything out of the guy was a big deal. He and the other two backs could've certainly made us a better running team than we were, and again I'll show you the immediate improvement under Davidson with essentially the same players.

So it's pretty tough to make the argument that Henning would've gotten more out of the same, when they used the same amount of resources (I'd actually say Davidson spent less on the line) and our 2007 run production was better.

And yes, he had say in personnel. He wasn't the final say, but after five years you expect a coach in charge of a unit to have a common goal with the head guy. His job is to get something out of what was there, and he didn't develop the young players that have been developed since.

 

Maser had his hand in the line too, but Henning brought him to miami (for a year) so I figure their philosophies aren't totally different.

 

Maser did have some run-ins too. And some of the failures were on his end.

The idea that they kept some key elements and simply promoted people (Magazu, Chryst) suggests they didn't have a problem with the approach, or the scheme.

 

Henning is Henning. We knew what we had when he was here and we knew what we were gonna face. He didn't do anything spectacular in either place. He might have been a scapegoat here but something needed to change because our offense simply was not good enough. Our offense this year has had its moments but something will def. need to change in the offseason.

Under both Henning and Davidson we have been totally incapable of running a RB screen. Same with a WR screen. We always just throw the "smoke" or "bubble" but without any blockers.

 

Mags, the problem I have with your argument is that you are implying that all investments in players should yield results if the OC is doing a good job. I do not think that is true. Shelton was never going to be any good no matter what OC he played for. He has done nothing since we let him go. Sometimes draft picks and free agents are home runs and sometimes they are busts. No OC can make a bust into a home run.

 

The point isn't just that he couldn't develop them but that he helped pick them.