A smidgen of plays designed with the T.E. in mind might have kept defenses a bit more honest.
A smidgen of plays designed with the T.E. in mind might have kept defenses a bit more honest.
Boomer... I've had it with this subject, on here. You and I can talk about this at the Eauque next year. If you are that interested in my opinion, read my football posts throughout the season. You clearly don't respect anyone but the opinion of the coaching staff. I'm sure that was true when Baldwin was here as well.
It wasn't just a matter of Haack starting (and staying in) every game. It was also dependent upon the coaches... clearly and without question... supporting him. It also depended on the coaches operating plays designed (from our play book) around Haack's passing. I know we were fighting an uphill battle with the OL... but there were times you couldn't have called worse plays. And "Eli up the gut" was a big part of it.
So... I'll answer your question this way... I think 7-5 was achievable with no better output from our defense. Our offense alone lost 2-3 games (and kept us uncompetitive in others) that a better coaching job last year would have turned into victories. I would have liked Hud to keep his face out of the defense with his "force turnovers and strip the ball" mentality... that probably easily lost one game by itself... but let's just focus on offense. The season was set up to be a limp package. Our coaching staff botched it. It was going to be a struggle... and they just cashed in our chips and took the first taxi home. That's my opinion of the coaching... and Haack being the QB (with their support) was only part of that overall failure.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)