While recognizing that his play calling limitations could well be influenced by a dink and dunk QB, a young OL and receivers unable to gain separation, I'm concerned that Henning is the wrong OC now and in the future.
Even having to contend with a box more crowded than some heiresses' IMO, his sequence of his play calling could still manage to be more inspired and less predictable, even when calling ground plays. Remember, he's been fired by at the least Carolina and Buffalo for being too conservative.
For those who point to his 2 Wash SB rings under Gibbs, considering that the NFL is a league in constant transition, what's more pertinent, as Gibbs recently determined, is "what have you done for me lately?" On a more recent basis, those who point to his 2004 SB appearance under Fox might well have a point, but keep in mind that season he had 2 stud RBs, a live-armed QB, who, if nothing else, could stretch the field and of course Steve Smith lurking out there to keep defenders honest. Looking back at Henning's more recent body of work, it seems that season was the anomoly.
He's a dynosaur who roamed when the lay of the land looked much different. This guy is 66 years old, the NFL equivalent of Joe Pa. I recognize he was brought in to marshall a "run first and foremost" type offense, and how innovative can we really expect him to be when faced with the realities of our team's shortcomings? BUT, when even I can predict 3 out of every 5 of his calls (literally, I've been counting), there's definitely a problem.
Perhaps you can argue that he's a steady-hand which is what we need presently for our journey from doormat to bellringer. However, we also need to win a few games along the way to keep butts in the orange seats and maintain player morale about that proverbial light somewhere at the end of this dark dank tunnel. We also need to see what we've got at their best for the FO to determine who stays or goes as the team continues to shed its seasonal old skin.
As dissatisfied as I am with the play calling status quo, I'm even more concerned how Henning's offensive "philosophy" could undermine the development of Henne, Ginn and other receivers. I suspect that even Chad's live-armed laser bullets would be activated in too predictable a manner - going through the obligatory motions to stretch the field or having to air it out mostly across from an interception-conducive prevent defense when it's a point where home runs remain our only obvious options.
Were there no more offensive-minded, resourceful, innovative OCs or assistants out there when Tuna hired his old buddy? IMO it is this practice of nepotism done at the team's expense that I find the most troubling of all.
Am I scapegoating Henning as an easy whipping boy for a collective miserable effort to date? Maybe, but even so, it's difficult to see how his presence will benefit the development of our young studs, especially Henne if pressed into service sooner than later.
Even having to contend with a box more crowded than some heiresses' IMO, his sequence of his play calling could still manage to be more inspired and less predictable, even when calling ground plays. Remember, he's been fired by at the least Carolina and Buffalo for being too conservative.
For those who point to his 2 Wash SB rings under Gibbs, considering that the NFL is a league in constant transition, what's more pertinent, as Gibbs recently determined, is "what have you done for me lately?" On a more recent basis, those who point to his 2004 SB appearance under Fox might well have a point, but keep in mind that season he had 2 stud RBs, a live-armed QB, who, if nothing else, could stretch the field and of course Steve Smith lurking out there to keep defenders honest. Looking back at Henning's more recent body of work, it seems that season was the anomoly.
He's a dynosaur who roamed when the lay of the land looked much different. This guy is 66 years old, the NFL equivalent of Joe Pa. I recognize he was brought in to marshall a "run first and foremost" type offense, and how innovative can we really expect him to be when faced with the realities of our team's shortcomings? BUT, when even I can predict 3 out of every 5 of his calls (literally, I've been counting), there's definitely a problem.
Perhaps you can argue that he's a steady-hand which is what we need presently for our journey from doormat to bellringer. However, we also need to win a few games along the way to keep butts in the orange seats and maintain player morale about that proverbial light somewhere at the end of this dark dank tunnel. We also need to see what we've got at their best for the FO to determine who stays or goes as the team continues to shed its seasonal old skin.
As dissatisfied as I am with the play calling status quo, I'm even more concerned how Henning's offensive "philosophy" could undermine the development of Henne, Ginn and other receivers. I suspect that even Chad's live-armed laser bullets would be activated in too predictable a manner - going through the obligatory motions to stretch the field or having to air it out mostly across from an interception-conducive prevent defense when it's a point where home runs remain our only obvious options.
Were there no more offensive-minded, resourceful, innovative OCs or assistants out there when Tuna hired his old buddy? IMO it is this practice of nepotism done at the team's expense that I find the most troubling of all.
Am I scapegoating Henning as an easy whipping boy for a collective miserable effort to date? Maybe, but even so, it's difficult to see how his presence will benefit the development of our young studs, especially Henne if pressed into service sooner than later.
