Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


Al Saunders: was he necessary?

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-18-2006, 02:07 AM   #16
Impact Rookie
 
redrock-skins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 783
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beemnseven View Post
"...run plays on just about every 1st and 2nd down" ??

According to the stats that are already up at NFL.com, Saunders called 18 passes on 1st down, while calling only 9 runs on 1st. On second down, he called 10 passes to 7 runs.

No matter what plays Saunders called, the players didn't execute.
Weren't most of those 1st and 2nd down passes late in the game? Not to mention that some of those "passes" were the short dump off variety.
redrock-skins is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 09-18-2006, 02:10 AM   #17
MVP
 
12thMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: washington, D.C.
Posts: 11,456
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

If we think the Texans will be pushovers, we have another thing coming. Unfortunately for us, they will be as desperate for a win as any team we've faced so far through three games.

They actually held their own against Philly until the caved in and handed them the game. I expect a very competive game from them. If we make the mistake of chalking this one up like we did against Minnesota, surely we'll
be 0-3.
12thMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 02:21 AM   #18
Playmaker
 
itvnetop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Age: 37
Posts: 2,854
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

i predicted a slow start on the offensive side of the ball, so i'm not that surprised... but i didn't think it would be this slow. i know blaming the new system is cliche, but some of that can't be understated. not being able to block up front, the backs not picking up their blocks correctly, the wideouts and qb not being on the same page, cooley not sure what his role in this offense is- this all leads to basic breakdowns that shouldn't happen in pro football.

when a player learns something new, he isn't yet reacting instinctively on the field- he's still mentally going through steps before and during the play instead of automating. that's why you may see wideouts breaking a few yards short on a pass play designed to pick up 8. a guard may totally whiff on fundamental blocking because he hesitated for a split second before remembering his assignment. apply that to an entire unit and you see what happens.

having said all that, i still think everyone on the offensive side of the ball could have contributed a lot more than what was shown tonight.
itvnetop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 02:36 AM   #19
Playmaker
 
Longtimefan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Germantown, Md.
Posts: 4,832
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

It's easy to point fingers when times are tough, it's to be expected. We all know we're struggling, we all think we know what the problems are but I'm more interested in listening to solutions as opposed to constantly pointing out the problems. We are not going to fire everybody, bench and/or replace everybody so we have to play the game with what we have. I don't see anything wrong that winning won't cure. I can go back through these post a few months and the very same people that had us in the SB are now singing a different tune now that we've lost a couple games. No more SB's now, it' fire everybody, it's truly amazing ho quickly things can change.
Longtimefan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 02:38 AM   #20
Swearinger
 
GMScud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Age: 36
Posts: 12,623
Angry Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

Well, you're only as good as your offensive line (see teams like the Raiders and the Texans). And tonight we didn't block anyone. Brunell was on his butt the whole game (he needs to sit regardless). Plus, we couldn't get a pass rush to save our lives. What's that, 2 sacks total in 2 games against two immobile, old quarterbacks?? What happens when we play Philly and Atlanta? Bottom line, we're not getting it done up front on either side of the ball. Blache and Bugel need to get on those guys in a big way.

On a side note, how nice was it to see my man Sean Taylor laying the lumber on T.O.?? The man hits like a truck.
GMScud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 02:49 AM   #21
Playmaker
 
Longtimefan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Germantown, Md.
Posts: 4,832
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GMScud View Post
Well, you're only as good as your offensive line (see teams like the Raiders and the Texans). And tonight we didn't block anyone. Brunell was on his butt the whole game (he needs to sit regardless). Plus, we couldn't get a pass rush to save our lives. What's that, 2 sacks total in 2 games against two immobile, old quarterbacks?? What happens when we play Philly and Atlanta? Bottom line, we're not getting it done up front on either side of the ball. Blache and Bugel need to get on those guys in a big way.

On a side note, how nice was it to see my man Sean Taylor laying the lumber on T.O.?? The man hits like a truck.


WELCOME!!!! GMScud, I like your name. I agree with your observation about the OL. That along with others are included in the breakdowns that are preventing us from winning.
Longtimefan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 03:00 AM   #22
Mr. Brightside
 
Big C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Fairfax, Virginia
Age: 28
Posts: 4,439
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

in hindsight it looks like so far saunders was too big of a transition, maybe gibbs should have still called plays with saunders adding some input and not totally changing the scheme
__________________
"I don't care what nobody say I'm a be me, stay hood stay real, cause I'm out here grindin'" -Joe Gibbs
Big C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 07:13 AM   #23
Special Teams
 
kingerock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Killeen, TX
Age: 38
Posts: 360
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

I think of a Suanders offense, and I see the importance of two good backs (Portis and Duckett) a strong TE (Cooley) a strong offensive line and capable WRs, which over the years in KC, nobody can really name any of them. It should have been the perfect fit. I think it all starts with the threat of a running game though, and that opens up the middle of the field for Cooley then the outside of the field for the WRs. We've got to get Portis back.

I'm glad Saunders is here for the long term. We've got options when Gibbs is ready to go with him and GW. I personally wish we could have added a vet QB in case Brunell looked like he did at the end of last year (which he does) and a Ty Law type DB and kept moving, but I think the new offense without Portis and the Springs injury is what's hurting us the most.
__________________
Redskins fan lost in Texas for 20 years. Need a ride to D.C.
kingerock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 07:46 AM   #24
Living Legend
 
That Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Springfield, VA
Age: 31
Posts: 16,265
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TAFKAS View Post
He was only necessary in the sense that Gibbs wanted a more hands on role with the entire operation (on and off the field),
if by hands on you mean hands off. he doen't do anything with the defense, he doesn't call the plays. he hired saunders so he'd have less stress and more time ( i don't think he wants to do the 80 hour work weeks any more). I think in gibbs mind it was necessary, cause he wouldn't stick around as long without more help, but it's effect on offensive performance hasn't been so hot thus far.
__________________
Who says shameless self promotion is stupid? oh yeah, that was me... Click For Tunes!
That Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 07:56 AM   #25
MVP
 
dmek25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: lancaster,pa
Age: 52
Posts: 10,515
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

i agree with thatguy. in the glory years, coach gibbs was the offensive co ordinator, and he trusted pettibone and the boys with the defense. greg williams has proved that he can coach a good defense, so im not sure why this move was made. the latter half of last year, i thought coach gibbs figured our offense out, what plays worked with what personnel, and basically called good games(i.e. the dallas game and the giants game come to mind) it seemed that they were comfortable with him and gibbs with them. i still dont understand why saunders was brought in
__________________
"It's better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt."
courtesy of 53fan
dmek25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 08:07 AM   #26
Pro Bowl
 
SKINSnCANES's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: New Jersey
Age: 32
Posts: 5,413
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

His offense works, if you execute it.

A) Receivers were open, but Brunell doesnt risk throwing it down field. Moss had Newman beat most of the game but brunell only threw it to Ladell Betts. Who by the way is our new 2.5 yd man. If ya ever need 2.5 yards, you can hand it off to him OR throw it to him...thats being a versitile player right there...

B) Do you think it was Gibbs or Saunders who with a minute left decided to run the clock out at the half? Why in hell are we always like that, almost any other team would have tried to atleast get in field goal range and get some mementum going into the half...That really pissed me off.

Brunell needs to open up more, throw the all down field, give his receivers a chance to make a play. He wont throw the ball if someoen is within ten yards of them...
__________________
"I'm used to winning, coming from the University of Miami. " Clinton Portis
SKINSnCANES is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 08:18 AM   #27
The Starter
 
#56fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Charlotte NC
Age: 40
Posts: 1,788
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

I keep hearing the same thing over and over, "it's going to take time for this offense to come together, blah blah blah" As we all know, there is no such thing as patience in DC. I dont think the organization expected for this to take this much time. No way in hell they went into this season expecting to struggle offensively for a few games, then turn it on. It is awful. I just dont understand it, everytime we take a step forward during a season, we take 5 back. we make the playoffs in 99, then crap out in 2000 through 2004. make the playoffs last year, now we look like crap. Last night reminded me of a Norv Turner team. Penalties, dumb plays, can't get the D off the damn field. its embarrassing! pay all the damn money we pay for the players and coaches, and we got schooled from the front office, the coaches, and the players.
#56fanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 08:29 AM   #28
I like big (_|_)s.
 
TheMalcolmConnection's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Lexington, Virginia
Age: 32
Posts: 17,488
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

Yes, I'm all done with Brunell. Saunders wasn't necessary by any means, but Brunell is the one who has to make the plays. He's TOO GODDAMN CAREFUL. I know he doesn't want to throw picks, but how about letting your playmakers make a play every now and then? Last year, he'd heave it up there if he thought the receivers had a decent shot of coming down with it.
__________________
Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.
TheMalcolmConnection is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 08:39 AM   #29
Special Teams
 
rickmmrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 317
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection View Post
Yes, I'm all done with Brunell. Saunders wasn't necessary by any means, but Brunell is the one who has to make the plays. He's TOO GODDAMN CAREFUL. I know he doesn't want to throw picks, but how about letting your playmakers make a play every now and then? Last year, he'd heave it up there if he thought the receivers had a decent shot of coming down with it.
That is axactly right. And it's never been as obvious to see then in last nights game.
rickmmrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 08:39 AM   #30
Impact Rookie
 
LongTimeSkinsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: LaVale MD
Age: 51
Posts: 515
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

After last night, I've drawn the following conclusions which I'm sure many others here have reached as well. Aside from the new offense, I feel pretty confident that:

1) CP is a key part of the offensive plan and players like Betts and Duckett are nowhere near being an acceptible substitute.

2) The offensive line, despite being the same bunch of guys we had last year are proving to be extremely porous on pass blocking and ineffective on run blocking. God forbid if we begin suffering injuries to the O-line, knowing that our back-ups are less skilled than our starters.

3) I'm disappointed that the offense appears to be nothing more than a 2 receiver offense, much like last year. Last year it seemed that most throws were going to Moss and Cooley. Now it seems that most throws are going to Moss and Betts (or whoever the RB is at the time). ARE is getting a few looks and Lloyd seems to get almost none. I doubt that it is because they are not getting open. I think it is more likely the result of observation #2 or Brunell not being able to go through his progressions efficiently.

4) While I'll reserve final judgment, I suspect that Brunell no longer has the physical ability to perform in this offensive scheme. He was better last year because most of the time, all he had to do was hand off to Portis and toss a couple of jokes around in the huddle. While it's still a little early, it appears he's just not getting this new offense.
__________________
...skins fan since 72 and still breathin'!
LongTimeSkinsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.34992 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25