Cards hire Whisenhunt - Now It's Official

[hafey]

FYI
The Steelers ran for 4.43 yds up the middle and ran up the middle 48% of the time.

 

[az1965]

Glad its over with.

Wait and see how it goes, both off season and next season before getting too excited or way depressed.

 

[Treesquid PhD]

One thing is for sure... Wisenhunt will build up this offensive line so he can use Edge in every possible way.

Joe Thomas is a lock if he is on the board when we pick.

I don't think anything is for certain. Rod Graves is running the player personel show now, we might even take a step back if they let Davis walk.

 

[Sandan]

The benefit is simple: It's tells the players "Losing is COMPLETELY unacceptable! Having a defense ranked in bottom four for both yards and scoring is NOT okay!

Sorry but to me this is laughable and gets us nothing. It might just as easily say

"We are firing everybody, including those ACs who we are too stupid too realize are good. As you can see our judegement sucks and just want to make grandiouse gestures without substance"

Firing the HC says losing is unacceptable.

And, if you have assistants you like, you say to them:

"We really liked the job you did. We hope that after we hire the new coach, and he agrees, you will consider coming back with us. Please keep open the option of returning here. Thank you, best of luck, no matter what happens."

This is so simplistic as to be beyond belief.

Why does it say that not to mention that it is so loaded and biased as to be ridiculous.

First, they are under contract, it's the Cardinals that are keeping all of the options open, the existing ACs have little say in the matter.

Secondly to use your sarcastic approach ... "We fired all the ACs who we are sure are worthless, we think that there is a possiblity you are not. Please get ready to interview for your job next week but there are no assurances."

Your entire premise is that the Cardinals FO is stupid, your post is written to say that. It seems to me [and going on what Rg said] that this is simply to give the new HC more options and that can't be a bad thing.

You don't fire possibly useful coaches/players just to make a point. DG did that with Pete Kendal and LJ Shelton and look how well that turned out.

 

[Treesquid PhD]

Hopefully Wiz brings in more of a running mentality, we have tried the passing
first and always around here for the last 10 years and it's failed. I would rather see a ball control grind out smash mouth style then a wussy pass first offense.

 

[Treesquid PhD]

Sorry but to me this is laughable and gets us nothing. It might just as easily say

"We are firing everybody, including those ACs who we are too stupid too realize are good. As you can see our judegement sucks and just want to make grandiouse gestures without substance"

Firing the HC says losing is unacceptable.



This is so simplistic as to be beyond belief.

Why does it say that not to mention that it is so loaded and biased as to be ridiculous.

First, they are under contract, it's the Cardinals that are keeping all of the options open, the existing ACs have little say in the matter.

Secondly to use your sarcastic approach ... "We fired all the ACs who we are sure are worthless, we think that there is a possiblity you are not. Please get ready to interview for your job next week but there are no assurances."

Your entire premise is that the Cardinals FO is stupid, your post is written to say that. It seems to me [and going on what Rg said] that this is simply to give the new HC more options and that can't be a bad thing.

You don't fire possibly useful coaches/players just to make a point. DG did that with Pete Kendal and LJ Shelton and look how well that turned out.

Until the Cardinals win they are going to be questioned when they make moves that appear to be in ownerships self interest.

 

[Ed Burmila]

You don't fire possibly useful coaches/players just to make a point. DG did that with Pete Kendal and LJ Shelton and look how well that turned out.

I think the point is that the team lost under these coaches. A lot. Remember the last three years, where we had 10 or more losses every season?

This isn't like a team coming off a super bowl win and asking a new coach to keep old assistants. I think you accuse the other posters of having a negative bias, but your Pro-Front Office bias is so strong that I think you're starting from the assumption that these assistants are "possibly useful" which is questionable. Possibly useful for what, helping us replicate our successes of the last three seasons?

You can expect a new HC to accept some holdovers from successful teams, but not on teams that have stunk historically. Our last five records are 5-11, 6-10, 5-11, 4-12, and 5-11. Where does the front office get off telling a new coach "We know how to run things, and we expect you to fall in line"? They should be BEGGING the new guy to come in and change things.

 

[ajcardfan]

Sorry but to me this is laughable and gets us nothing. It might just as easily say

"We are firing everybody, including those ACs who we are too stupid too realize are good. As you can see our judegement sucks and just want to make grandiouse gestures without substance"

Firing the HC says losing is unacceptable.



This is so simplistic as to be beyond belief.

Why does it say that not to mention that it is so loaded and biased as to be ridiculous.

First, they are under contract, it's the Cardinals that are keeping all of the options open, the existing ACs have little say in the matter.

Secondly to use your sarcastic approach ... "We fired all the ACs who we are sure are worthless, we think that there is a possiblity you are not. Please get ready to interview for your job next week but there are no assurances."

Your entire premise is that the Cardinals FO is stupid, your post is written to say that. It seems to me [and going on what Rg said] that this is simply to give the new HC more options and that can't be a bad thing.

You don't fire possibly useful coaches/players just to make a point. DG did that with Pete Kendal and LJ Shelton and look how well that turned out.

I wasn't being sarcastic, nidan. Obviously, you don't agree. Fine. I'll take the high road and avoid juvenile, petty adjectives like "laughable" and "simplistic". The majority of front offices have had the philosophy I described, so I'll leave it at that.

I think a nap, or a beer, would do you some good.

 

[Goldfield]

Hopefully Wiz brings in more of a running mentality, we have tried the passing
first and always around here for the last 10 years and it's failed. I would rather see a ball control grind out smash mouth style then a wussy pass first offense.

We need to be balanced. Need to improve the running game. We need to improve the OLine. Need to use the TE more, need to use our playmakers better.

Would love to see Wiz bring in more Steelers coaches pluss use the 3-4.

 

[joeshmo]

Well, he is not known as Fast Willie Parker for nothing and alot of those yards were on reverses and sweeps. He is not known for grinding between the tackles

Not true, between the tackles he ran the ball 257 times for 1067 yards, 4.2 YPC, and 9 TD's. Compare that to the outside of the tackles of 80 attempts for 432 yards at a 5.4 YPC and 4 TD's. So to say that a lot of his yards were on sweeps and reverses just is not true, and he does very well for himself between the tackles.

 

[Ed Burmila]

Bot true, between the tackles he ran the ball 257 times for 1067 yards, 4.2 YPC, and 9 TD's. Compare that to the outside of the tackles of 80 attempts for 432 yards at a 5.4 YPC and 4 TD's. So to say that a lot of his yards were on sweeps and reverses just is not true, and he does very well for himself between the tackles.

Oh, you and your silly "facts"! They have no impact here.

</joking/sarcastic>

 

[Rats]

Bot true, between the tackles he ran the ball 257 times for 1067 yards, 4.2 YPC, and 9 TD's. Compare that to the outside of the tackles of 80 attempts for 432 yards at a 5.4 YPC and 4 TD's. So to say that a lot of his yards were on sweeps and reverses just is not true, and he does very well for himself between the tackles.

Ok, now that you are the 4th person to state this. If you read the intire post I said I could be wrong. But also what I said was that he is not "known" for running between the tackles. Last season he did. I can accept that I was wrong. Thanks for all of you stat guys telling me that. This does not change that we do not have the personel to do this on this offense and Hiring Whisenhunt puts us in a rebuilding mode as we have a passing offense. Tell me I am making that up...that is what your cicle jerk is good at.

 

[PACardsFan]

I just do not understand the intrigue with this guy. The Steelers were a definsive team that played smashmouth football and ran the ball to control the clock. Do we have that kind of personel on this team? Do we have that kind of depth? The simple answer is no. This hire puts us to rebuilding and sets the team back 3 seasons. His offenses in Pitt were dull and with out the Bus last year they plain out stunk running the ball and relied on trick plays. I will not blame Whisenhunt. He was on other teams list. I will blame the Bidwills and there ineptness for not finding the ideal candidate for our personel. I as a season ticketholder am not suprised at the front office. This is a guy they can force there under contract assistants on, and a guy they can control. He has a Tightend/SpecialTeam coach before Pitt gave him OC job. With new revenue streams, a new stadium and a Fickle Arizona Fan Base ready to jump ship everyone but the diehards are saying WHO??? Get used to seeing half of the new stadium filled with opposing fans. Thanks Bidwills.

Living in PA, I watched the Steelers weekly. You're confusing the Steeler teams of the past with the Steeler teams that Whisenhunt actually coached. Under Whisenhunt, the Steelers were far more balanced & almost more dependent on the pass than the run. During the Steelers run to the SB, the Steelers passing game was unstoppable. Roethlisberger tore up the Bengals, Colts & especially the Broncos. Even though Ben played poorly in the SB, it was a few passing plays that broke Seattle's back. I wanted an offensive-minded coach & it came down to Sherman, Whiz, Cameron or Chow. I prefer a younger coach, so it really came down to Cameron & Whiz. Cameron was a far more risky pick IMO, so I like the Whisenhunt selection. Too many on this board are mischaracterizing what type of offense the Steelers actually were under Whisenhunt.

 

[D-Dogg]

Living in PA, I watched the Steelers weekly. You're confusing the Steeler teams of the past with the Steeler teams that Whisenhunt actually coached. Under Whisenhunt, the Steelers were far more balanced & almost more dependent on the pass than the run. During the Steelers run to the SB, the Steelers passing game was unstoppable. Roethlisberger tore up the Bengals, Colts & especially the Broncos. Even though Ben played poorly in the SB, it was a few passing plays that broke Seattle's back. I wanted an offensive-minded coach & it came down to Sherman, Whiz, Cameron or Chow. I prefer a younger coach, so it really came down to Cameron & Whiz. Cameron was a far more risky pick IMO, so I like the Whisenhunt selection. Too many on this board are mischaracterizing what type of offense the Steelers actually were under Whisenhunt.

Thank you very much...absolutely correct.

 

[RonF]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/nfl/01/14/whisenhunt.cards.ap/index.html

Here is a link about Whisenhunt and the Cards.

 

[Stallion]

I'm on board. I like that he was part of a team being built to win the Super Bowl just last year. I hope he brings in more new blood.

Go Cards! Go Whiz!

 

[Rats]

Living in PA, I watched the Steelers weekly. You're confusing the Steeler teams of the past with the Steeler teams that Whisenhunt actually coached. Under Whisenhunt, the Steelers were far more balanced & almost more dependent on the pass than the run. During the Steelers run to the SB, the Steelers passing game was unstoppable. Roethlisberger tore up the Bengals, Colts & especially the Broncos. Even though Ben played poorly in the SB, it was a few passing plays that broke Seattle's back. I wanted an offensive-minded coach & it came down to Sherman, Whiz, Cameron or Chow. I prefer a younger coach, so it really came down to Cameron & Whiz. Cameron was a far more risky pick IMO, so I like the Whisenhunt selection. Too many on this board are mischaracterizing what type of offense the Steelers actually were under Whisenhunt.

Ok, so your saying that Ben in his SB year and first season was looked to to throw the ball all over the field and get the team in the endzone. Sorry, that is not what I remember happening. He handed the ball off all season to the Bus and WP and they had several big plays by there receiving corp in the playoffs and SB run. That is what I remember and everyone characterized his great run as being heavily supported by the outstanding running game and a great OLINE. Last season without 2 thirds of there receiving they had to run the ball and did so effectivily behind an outstanding line. Whisenhunts offenses I would not characterize as a pass first offense. Nor would I say that he was a dynamic playcaller as others have said. He had a very good line and they built there offense from there. If we can have that kind of line I would be happy. But it will take 3 years to get to that. We have a pass first offense personel wise and we need that kind of coach. Please explain where I am wrong on this.

 

[Red Dawn]

Here's a link to a thread on a Steeler board about the Cards choice of Whisenhunt. Overall, it seems they hate to see him go:

Whiz to the Cards

I like this guys take on page 3:

The Whiz was promoted to OC from TE coach before the 2004 season. Compare the 2004 offense to the 2005 offense to the 2006 offense. While they all possess some strong similarities and propensities, let's be honest, they were materially different.

2004, Steelers began the game mixing power running from Duce or Bettis with mostly long shots by Ben to Ward and Burress. After building a lead, they progressed to more and more power running, and in the second half, ran power runs almost exclusively.

2005, Steelers lost Burress and consequently relied less on the long bomb. The Steelers used Parker running, largely outside, and mid-range tosses to Ward and Heath Miller, and then in the RZ switched to Bettis power running or, certainly more commonly than in 2004, targeted Miller or Ward in the RZ with short flips or PA. The Steelers also used much more trickery with ARE, especially in the playoffs. While the Steelers again used the pass to set up the run, the "turtle" was employed less than in 2004.

2006, Steelers moved away from using Miller as frequently, and emphasized a more spread WR offense, mostly using mid-range passes and trying to set up gains after the pass. Parker was used both in the RZ and otherwise, and began to run far more inside. Trickery was not employed nearly as much in the offense, and the pass -- even in the earliest stages of the game -- were used with increasing commonality. The "turtle" offense only reared in games where the Steelers had a truly commanding lead.

 

[Mr.Dibbs]

Ok, so your saying that Ben in his SB year and first season was looked to to throw the ball all over the field and get the team in the endzone. Sorry, that is not what I remember happening. He handed the ball off all season to the Bus and WP and they had several big plays by there receiving corp in the playoffs and SB run. That is what I remember and everyone characterized his great run as being heavily supported by the outstanding running game and a great OLINE. Last season without 2 thirds of there receiving they had to run the ball and did so effectivily behind an outstanding line. Whisenhunts offenses I would not characterize as a pass first offense. Nor would I say that he was a dynamic playcaller as others have said. He had a very good line and they built there offense from there. If we can have that kind of line I would be happy. But it will take 3 years to get to that. We have a pass first offense personel wise and we need that kind of coach. Please explain where I am wrong on this.

The Bus was pretty much done the last year he played, Randle El had a spectacular game- hence why he got the big contract in Washington, and Wards was unstoppable all year. PACardsfan is correct. In 2005 they had as many running tds as passing tds.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

I think the point is that the team lost under these coaches. A lot. Remember the last three years, where we had 10 or more losses every season?

This isn't like a team coming off a super bowl win and asking a new coach to keep old assistants. I think you accuse the other posters of having a negative bias, but your Pro-Front Office bias is so strong that I think you're starting from the assumption that these assistants are "possibly useful" which is questionable. Possibly useful for what, helping us replicate our successes of the last three seasons?

You can expect a new HC to accept some holdovers from successful teams, but not on teams that have stunk historically. Our last five records are 5-11, 6-10, 5-11, 4-12, and 5-11. Where does the front office get off telling a new coach "We know how to run things, and we expect you to fall in line"? They should be BEGGING the new guy to come in and change things.

How many of the Asst. coaches hired by Denny in year one of his regime are still on the team?

Help you with the research. These are the ASSISTANT COACHES still on staff:

http://www.azcardinals.com/team/coaches.php

 

[football karma]

Here's a link to a thread on a Steeler board about the Cards choice of Whisenhunt. Overall, it seems they hate to see him go:

Whiz to the Cards

They are going through the cycle --

1. Dissapointed because they wanted him as coach, then-
2. Rationalizing that he wasnt all that good, then--
3. Deciding that this was a good thing for the Steelers.

 

[joeshmo]

Last season without 2 thirds of there receiving they had to run the ball and did so effectivily behind an outstanding line. Whisenhunts offenses I would not characterize as a pass first offense. Nor would I say that he was a dynamic playcaller as others have said. He had a very good line and they built there offense from there. If we can have that kind of line I would be happy. But it will take 3 years to get to that. We have a pass first offense personel wise and we need that kind of coach. Please explain where I am wrong on this.

Run Attempts - 469
Pass attempts - 523

Both ranked for 15th in the league and he ran the most balanced offense in the league.

Why cant we have that here to. Once the Bus was gone Wiz was not a pass first or run first OC. He was a balanced OC.

And why will it take 3 years to have that kind of line. Why do people still believe that it takes 3 years to build anything in todays NFL.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

They are going through the cycle --

1. Dissapointed because they wanted him as coach, then-
2. Rationalizing that he wasnt all that good, then--
3. Deciding that this was a good thing for the Steelers.

.... and GRIMM is a moron

 

[joeshmo]

2006, Steelers moved away from using Miller as frequently, and emphasized a more spread WR offense, mostly using mid-range passes and trying to set up gains after the pass. Parker was used both in the RZ and otherwise, and began to run far more inside. Trickery was not employed nearly as much in the offense, and the pass -- even in the earliest stages of the game -- were used with increasing commonality. The "turtle" offense only reared in games where the Steelers had a truly commanding lead.

If that bolded part isnt the perfect example of what our O is then I dont know what is.

 

[Red Dawn]

They are going through the cycle --

1. Dissapointed because they wanted him as coach, then-
2. Rationalizing that he wasnt all that good, then--
3. Deciding that this was a good thing for the Steelers.

Yeah, it strikes me we could substitute "Bidwill" for "Rooney" and "Cards" for "steelers" on that MB and the result would be nearly identical to ASFN.