Re: Al Saunders on the way out?
 

[quote=Mattyk72;407149]Not saying the money was the problem, just saying he didn't produce. Hence, he didn't do what he paid him to do. Were you happy with the results of his offense?[/quote]On the whole, yes. We did a pretty average job, but a much better than average job in the passing game, which is the most important thing.

The running games' ineffectiveness certainly held us back, but that's not the coaches fault. We simply do not have the talent up front to be any better than average.

If Saunders is to blame for anything, it's that the receivers weren't always ready to play, and he's a former receivers coach. Outside of that, you can't be disappointed with anything he's done.

Re: Al Saunders on the way out?
 

It's not always the schemes.

C. Portis was injurred last year.

Two O-Linemen out for the year this year. Played a rook FA and a re-tread wannabe.

HOF Coach Gibbs did not switch to Campbell until late last year so we had Brunnell, and we know how that went!

We have such short memories.

Not excuses, but simply sound reasons for lack of productivity.

Re: Al Saunders on the way out?
 

[quote=backrow;407213]It's not always the schemes.

C. Portis was injurred last year.

Two O-Linemen out for the year this year. Played a rook FA and a re-tread wannabe.

HOF Coach Gibbs did not switch to Campbell until late last year so we had Brunnell, and we know how that went!

We have such short memories.

Not excuses, but simply sound reasons for lack of productivity.[/quote]

On top of that:

His complex system apparently takes awhile to learn. So you have to give him a pass for year one.

JC obviously doesn't know the system well enough yet (as TC most certainly DOES), and TC simply doesn't have the talent to be elite, even if he knows what he is doing in the Offense. So you have to give him a pass for year two.

I will agree that he has not proved himself yet, but Im sorry Matty there is very little evidence in the way of grounds to dismiss him. If you consider what has held this team back Offensively the past two years, there is little to prove that it has been the result of Saunders or his system. With the effectiveness of his offensive scheme in the past I think it would be down right foolish to let him go without giving him a legitimate shot at producing what he is expected to.

Not to say that you are calling for his head. I understand that you were simply saying that you wouldn't be surprised if Danny felt this way and canned him for it. But I wholeheartedly disagree, if Snyder gave him the boot I think most people would be both surprised and disappointed.

Re: Al Saunders on the way out?
 

Bottom line, Saunders didn't get it done. We can list all the excuses we want, at the end of the day his offenses ranked 13th and 15th overall. I'm not saying it's all his fault but in the end someone has to take the fall. Add in the fact that he and GW have different football philosophies and the writing is on the all for Al assuming GW gets the job.

Re: Al Saunders on the way out?
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;407168]More often than not, we heard about Gibbs handcuffing Saunders' offense. Which I always found rather reedycholuz (that's for you Brud) to say when the offense faltered it was Gibbs, but when it performed it was "look what the Al Saunders can do."

I think what happened was that their philosophies maybe weren't as closely matched as they had thought. Yet, as we saw for example in the Bears game, Gibbs' max protect, motion schemes can coexist with Saunders' aerial attack.

But bottom line, with Gibbs out of the picture now (feel weird saying it like that), there should be no confusion that it's Saunders' offense. So I think we need to keep him one more year and let him prove his full worth here.

And I think to further emphasize it's his show we need to pare down the coaching staff. You've got Saunders as Assoc. Head Coach-Offense. Bugel as Assistant Head Coach-Offense (at least you know he's an offensive line svengali), Don Breaux as Offensive Coordinator (what's his role exactly), and Jack Burns as Offensive Assistant (and his role?)[/QUOTE]

Sounds good to me. If the offense doesn't measure up to Saunders' hype, then we need to go in a new direction the season after that. By season three, everybody should have his system down pat. There should be no reason (injuries or not) for a lack of productivity.

Re: Al Saunders on the way out?
 

If Saunders left (maybe even if he didn't), do you guys think we might see a WC offense (and I'm talking about the Bill Walsh West Coast Offense) with the Redskins next year if Gregg Williams becomes head coach?

Consider this:

1. When Williams was the HC in Buffalo, he tried implementing the West Coast offense

2. Jason Campbell was most successful his senior year at Auburn where he ran...the West Coast offense

Re: Al Saunders on the way out?
 

Interesting. To be perfectly honest I am not all that familiar with the West Coast Offense. How well would the rest of our Offensive players fit into that system?

Re: Al Saunders on the way out?
 

I think if we move toward the West Coast Offense we need to make sure we have some really good receivers to make it work. It might make Clinton Portis shine though.

Re: Al Saunders on the way out?
 

Well Portis played under a version of the WC offense in Denver with Mike Shanahan, Santana Moss played under one in New York with Herman Edwards

Re: Al Saunders on the way out?
 

[quote=hurrykaine;406613]Saunders better be back. Would suck to go back to the high school offense that Breaux/Burns/Bugel employed in '04 and most of '05. Or for that matter, it would suck equally to watch the offense struggle to learn a totally new offensive system.[/quote]


the fact is, al suanders offense is difficult and complicated. and too bad we cannot learn it to perfection. that why we cannot produce it. hope that we can lure pats current offensive coordinator here.

Re: Al Saunders on the way out?
 

I have mixed feelings about the West Coast offense. I love the short passing game, but I also like pounding the football. Those two things rarely get along in the West Coast. I guess it depends on which version you are using as well. The Eagles do not run much, but Tampa Bay does. Whatever.

In my honest opinion I would rather see our offensive system stay in place. If that means keeping Saunders, then so be it. I do not want to see our offense struggle for another season and a half because we changed everything again.

Re: Al Saunders on the way out?
 

[QUOTE=bertoskins2;407255]the fact is, al suanders offense is difficult and complicated. and too bad we cannot learn it to perfection. that why we cannot produce it. hope that we can lure pats current offensive coordinator here.[/QUOTE]

Josh McDaniel is probably not going anywhere this year, if he does it'd probably be Atlanta

Re: Al Saunders on the way out?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;407249]If Saunders left (maybe even if he didn't), do you guys think we might see a WC offense (and I'm talking about the Bill Walsh West Coast Offense) with the Redskins next year if Gregg Williams becomes head coach?

Consider this:

1. When Williams was the HC in Buffalo, he tried implementing the West Coast offense

2. Jason Campbell was most successful his senior year at Auburn where he ran...the West Coast offense[/quote]

from what i have seen on GB yesterday, I am curious what will be the effect if we implement it here. this will also help our defense since this WC can eat up alot of clock. of course we can take shots downfiled from time to time if opportunity arises

Re: Al Saunders on the way out?
 

Well I just looked this up on Wikipedia, Im not sure how accurate or relevant any of this is but for the sake of argument:

[I]The West Coast offense requires [B]a quarterback who throws extremely accurately, and often blindly, very close to opposing players hands. In addition, it requires the quarterback to be able to quickly pick one of 5 receivers to throw to[/B], much quicker than previously used systems. [B]Often, the quarterback cannot think about the play, but instead reacts instinctively[/B]--and thus is often under the control of the offensive coordinator, calling the plays for him.

This is in contrast to the previous quarterback requirements of other systems, which were an adept game manager and a strong arm. Thus, for example, many people reasoned that Johnny Unitas, a strong-armed field general would not have fared well in being subservient to the offensive coordinator, and that his long but sometimes wobbly passes would not have worked in the new system. The West Coast offense caused a split still evident today amongst quarterbacks: those who were more adept at the west coast style (Joe Montana, Steve Young, Matt Hasselbeck) and those more in tune with the old style (Dan Marino, Jim Kelly, Peyton Manning).

[B]Also, the West Coast offense requires sure-handed receivers comfortable catching in heavy traffic, and the system downplays speedy, larger receivers who are covered easily in short yardage situation[/B]. One result has been the longevity of receivers in the West Coast system (such as the notable Jerry Rice) because a decline in speed is not as harmful, when, in "stretch the field" systems, a receiver who loses a step is a major liability. [B]"WCO" systems also rely on agile running backs that catch the ball as often as they run.[/B] Roger Craig was a leading receiver for the 49ers for many years and was often a 1000 yard rusher and 1000 yard receiver.[B] Finally, receivers must follow precise, complicated routes as opposed to innovation; so subservient, intelligent players are valued more than independent, pure athletes[/B].

A West Coast offense thus requires a willing, accurate passer and sure-handed receivers with intelligence.

[B]Finally, the West Coast offense, with its emphasis on quick reactive skills, can be seen to further develop the running quarterback motif[/B], where extremely fast running quarterbacks (Michael Vick, Jake Plummer, Steve Young, Donovan McNabb, Vince Young) are valued, if they are good passers, because in blitz or short-yardage situations, when the West Coast offense's value is negated, the running quarterback can make up this difference by posing a threat to make the first down himself, paralyzing an aggressive defense.[/I]

So (according to these requirements) we seem to have some things that lend to this type of system, and some that dont (how insightful huh?).

Campbell is accurate, but perhaps not on shorter throws. He has incredible arm strength so one could argue that the WCO might be a waste of that ability considering its heavy use of quick, short passes, but of course those deeper passes can be set up by the shorter passes. Also I am not sure if he has the knowledge to make all the reads accurately just yet, and he seems to have trouble getting the ball out quick enough to make this system work correctly. He does, however, have athleticism that could compliment the system, and all the aforementioned issues can be resolved with a bit more experience. So as far as JC goes its a toss up.

As far as Moss and El . . . well Im not sure they have the most reliable hands, I wouldn't say that route running was their strength (not that they are bad at it, but Moss is ussually credited more for his ability to adjust to the deep ball then for running crisp routes), I'm not sure either are built for catching balls in heavy traffic (but Im sure they'd be "comfortable" with it, perhaps not durable enough though), and they seem to be much better suited for running deeper routes because of their speed. Both, however, have shown that they are great at making plays after shorter passes, and once they have established themselves as a serious threat on shorter pass plays it will open things up for their speed to be put to good use on deep shots, and could perhaps flourish in the system given the right playcalling.

Clinton Portis, despite his production on screens late in the season has never been known for his catching abilities. I am excited at his improvement in this area, but I am not sure I would bank on him being the hybrid runningback-receiver this system calls for. On the other hand, the running lanes this system is supposed to create due to forcing teams to respect the pass could really improve CP's production; we all know what he can do if he gets into space. Also it mentioned somewhere that traditionally the WCO is a two back system which might allow us to utilize both CP and Betts.

As far as Cooley, there was little if any mention TE's in what I read, so I am not sure what his role would be. What I am certain of, however, is that he MUST be utilized. I am sure he could help on the short passing aspect of the philosophy, and could be used on screens.

Overall what I read suggested that the WCO had little to do with playcalling, but was more of a philosophy that short to intermediate passes can be used to setup the run and the deep pass. A "pass first, run later" philosophy if you will. I tend to think that we are better setup for a run first team. Over the past three years more often then not it was our running game that won us most of our games, and CP has shown that he can carry the team on his shoulders if need be. Plus, I had enough of the dinking and dunking we saw with Brunell. I know that that was not a philosophical decision, but rather his inability to throw the deep ball making those passes a liability, but still I am not convinced that the short passes actually do much to open up either the run or the deep ball. But as I said before, I know next to nothing about this. I am just bored and decided to research this a bit for fun, but from what I can tell (which is very little) the WCO doesn't seem to match up well for this team.

Re: Al Saunders on the way out?
 

The Al Saunders offense didn't flourish until the end of the season because Jason Campbell is still learning the system. As soon as he was replaced by a quarterback who was not only talented but experienced in the system, our offense took off like a rocket.

I'm confident that Dan Snyder is wise enough to maintain stability. We have a chance to be very good next season, but if we tear up our offense, we will go back to square one, just like we did when we brought Al Saunders in originally.

Re: Al Saunders on the way out?
 

If the 2nd G in Gregg is truly for genius, maybe he sees the direction the league's successful teams (NE, GB, Seattle, Dallas) went this year to a high powered, aggressive offense and wants that to be our hallmark.

Nothing probably frustrated him more than all of the leads the offense didn't expand on because JG took the air out of the ball and his defense ended up giving away too much from being on the field forever. Of course McDaniels (NE), Garrett (Dal) or either GB & Sea coaches aren't coming to coach the offense but he (hopefully) may want to incorporate some of their concepts into our offense.

Re: Al Saunders on the way out?
 

I'm really think that the only way I can get behind the hiring of Williams is if Saunders stays. If Saunders goes, I don't think that continuity on the defensive is nearly as important as it would be on O. The offense started to click under Collins and I think that Campbell should be able to take a look at that and start to really become a very good player in the scheme, if Saunders goes, all of that is out the window and he has to learn ANOTHER new system. I can pretty much guarantee that means they'll have another down year on that side of the ball.

As for the defense, they were good last year, but GW showed a lot of stubborness when it comes to sticking to gameplans. I can't remember how many times I was screaming at the screen to change his gameplan and bring pressure or whatever and he never did. See: the Pats game, he just stayed in deep coverage even though they were being picked apart.

Re: Al Saunders on the way out?
 

[QUOTE=Oakland Red;407273]The Al Saunders offense didn't flourish until the end of the season because Jason Campbell is still learning the system. As soon as he was replaced by a quarterback who was not only talented but experienced in the system, our offense took off like a rocket.

I'm confident that Dan Snyder is wise enough to maintain stability. We have a chance to be very good next season, but if we tear up our offense, we will go back to square one, just like we did when we brought Al Saunders in originally.[/QUOTE]

I wish I shared your enthusiasm regarding Snyder. Hopefully he wasn't blowing smoke when he said he had learned a lot from Gibbs. If he falls back into the money can win ball games frame of mind,we are boned.

Re: Al Saunders on the way out?
 

It would be a shame if we promoted Williams in an effort to maintain continuity, then let Saunders go. The Saunders offense works when the QB delivers the ball on time. Jason Campbell was getting close, and by next year, I would expect him to make the big leap that we've seen from other QB's that have played under Saunders.

Re: Al Saunders on the way out?
 

[QUOTE=dmek25;406656]i was one of the biggest Saunders bashers. but over the last quarter of the season, his offense started clicking. now, to keep continuity, he has almost got to stay if the skins are to be successful in 2008[/QUOTE]

I agree. Didn't like him in 06' at all. This year it got better and towards the end was great. We needed Campbell in Seatle, Colling looked old.

Keep Al.

Re: Al Saunders on the way out?
 

[quote=Mattyk72;406692]I won't be surprised if Saunders gets dumped especially if GW takes over. Let's face it, other than the 4 game streak his offense was disappointing to say the least.[/quote]

I thought the O was farily good at the end of 06. Saunders had convinced Gibbs & Buges that zone blocking was the way to go, Betts was running through major holes & JC was looking good considering it was his first stint as a starter.

Yes, the O has been a major disappointment at times, mainly in the lack of scoring despite big yardage #s. This is more a factor of JC's development, see the stats from the Dallas & Tampa games. HE threw for major yardage but ended the games w/picks.

I would hope that Al gets a chance to at least state his case & explain the working relationship w/Gibbs. It would seem best for JC et al if he stays IMO.

Re: Al Saunders on the way out?
 

For the record I'm not advocating for Saunders to be fired, I can just understand the rationale behind the decision if it ends up going that way.

Re: Al Saunders on the way out?
 

I think Al should stick here for at least another year to see how the offense clicks.

Re: Al Saunders on the way out?
 

[quote=Mattyk72;407511]For the record I'm not advocating for Saunders to be fired, I can just understand the rationale behind the decision if it ends up going that way.[/quote]

Understood Matty. Per one of the coaching threads of last week, we discussed Snyder's self-proclaimed newfound "patience." This will be another decision that will test it.

One way to look at it is that he will be patient w/AS & let the offense develop as JC does, i.e. keeping Al around.
Another way to look at it is his "patience" will allow him to let a new head coach mold the team as he chooses & get a new OC, even if it takes time & sacrifices continuity for the upcoming season.

Re: Al Saunders on the way out?
 

[quote=Mattyk72;407511]For the record I'm not advocating for Saunders to be fired, I can just understand the rationale behind the decision if it ends up going that way.[/quote]Well, the rationale that "we thought we could find someone better" does it for me.

I'm really not picky on who coaches the team, so long as we get him the best possible players.

Re: Al Saunders on the way out?
 

[QUOTE=GMScud;406614]Apparently the Danny is very disappointed with the offense since Al came in. It's hard to judge Al too hard because of the flux in the QB position and injuries. Not to mention the conflicting philosophies with Gibbs (which still makes me wonder why Al was hired to begin with). I think if he sticks around he MUST have autonomy as far as all play calling is concerned. I personally don't want to see him go. If the Danny is all about continuity and JC being the franchise QB, then stick with Al.[/QUOTE]

Danny is the same guy who stated if it ain't broke don't fix it when it comes to hiring a GM, unfortunately he believes 1 win in the playoffs in 4 years is a huge success, couple that with Saunders to run an offense with incompetent QB's that his GM system has provided and there you have it, Saunders proved what he is capable of doing the second he was able to get a smart QB on the field, Brunell, or Campbell I don't believe have the head for his offense. I have a bad feeling we are going to go big time backwards next season, especially if Saunders is let loose. GW I don't beleive is much of a head coach and I think he will get the job in the end.

Re: Al Saunders on the way out?
 

I'd like to see Saunders stay, but I think Joe Bugel, Don Breaux, Rennie Simmons, and Jack Burns probably should go. I read the article in the Washington Post that said they would like to stay, but the new coach should choose his own assistants. If Willams gets the job, they'll probably stay, but their loyalty is with Joe Gibbs. I like those guys, but we need new ideas, especially on blocking schemes. If the Giants can win two playoff games with Eli, then we need manor changes. So I'd give Saunders one more year to produce. He did a fairly good job until Seattle came along, but the offensive line just didn't give the QB any help in that game.

Re: Al Saunders on the way out?
 

No one will ever accuse me of being an Advocate for Al Saunders (although I do create alliteration without even meaning to sometimes) , but I think that if he wants to stay and if Williams (or whoever) doesn't object then he should stay. Why? First, it improves the chances that we keep Collins. I think that if Saunders leaves, Collins is as good as gone. We need him here as either The Man or as an Uber-Backup. Second, Jason Campbell seems to have a positive relationship with Al. I'm not convinced that Al's system is the best for Jason's skill set, but I would hate to start over only to find out that he's even less suited to some new system. If keeping Al proves impossible, then I say promote Lazor and try to maintain as much continuity in the offense as possible.