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, 09:06 AM   #31
Playmaker
 
onlydarksets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: all up in your business
Posts: 2,693
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by redrock-skins View Post
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.
Lets put this to rest. Here is the breakdown by quarter:

Code:

      FIRST       SECOND       
   Pass   Run   Pass   Run       
Q1   3     1      2     2       
Q2   1     3      2     2       
Q3   1     4      0     1       
Q4   7     1      5     0

Obviously, we ran on 1st/2nd downs a LOT more in the first three quarters. We gave up the run in the fourth when we had no choice.

If the announcers are to be believed, I blame this one on Gibbs. They quoted him as saying that we were going to run the ball a LOT more tonight because he thought 17 touches was not enough (FWIW, I agree). However, that suggests he took some control back from Saunders. How the hell are the players supposed to learn the system if Saunders isn't allowed to run it?
__________________
Stop reading my signature.

Last edited by onlydarksets; 09-18-2006 at 09:08 AM. Reason: Formatting got hosed
onlydarksets is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 09-18-2006, 09:12 AM   #32
Camp Scrub
 
brianconner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

Far too often, players were just standing around, or going quarter speed, rather than playing like they want to win.

Many times, I saw linemen who would lose the outside or inside to the defensive guy and they'd just give up. You could see them just standing there, watching Brunell get hit or rushed.

Then there were the receivers, who wouldn't run full out unless they were the primary or secondary. I saw Brunell being forced to throw it away because the receivers simply gave up on him.

It looks more like the Skins of the 60s than it does a Gibbs coached team. If TV would show the sideline shots more, I bet you'd see more players sitting down on the bench than standing up and cheering the offense/defense on. They give the very definite impression of a team that doesn't think it can win.

So sad . . . and I've been a Redskins fan since the late 50s. This team is beginning to look like it's stuck on losing. Gibbs needs to immediately put his strong hand back into the team and shake 'em up good.
brianconner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 09:14 AM   #33
The Starter
 
#56fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Charlotte NC
Age: 39
Posts: 1,788
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

I was excited when the brought Saunders in and the WR pick ups and so. But if I remember correctly, when Joe had these types of players in his previous stent, he had 3 1000 yard receivers in 1 season, broke all kinds of scoring records and so on. Now, last year when we had Patten and Moss our offense was moving the ball the fine. We put points up against tough defenses and looked good. Moss goes down we struggle. Now, we bring Lloyd and El, to go with Moss and Cooley. If this organiztion wanted to win and win now, why bring in a totally new offensive scheme. Plus, your QB of future now has to learn ANOTHER offense. which, now this essentially becomes another Rookie year for him. The more I thought about this, the more I began to question it. We dont have rocket scientists trying to catch the ball for us, so you know there is going to be a good bit of time spent learning this stuff. And historically, Saunders first year with a new team, the offense has been in the 20's. Which is why our D is going to struggle. That offense likes to move quickly, strike quick, and if we dont convert 3rd downs and have a bunch of 3 and outs, our D is simply going to wear down. Especially at the end of the game when we need a stand, they just wont have an gas left. If its going to take 8 weeks for this offense to start to gel, then why waste those 8 weeks with a 36 year old guy, I would rather waste them with someone who has a future
#56fanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 09:20 AM   #34
Living Legend
 
That Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Springfield, VA
Age: 31
Posts: 16,246
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

during the draft i wanted a new LG more than anything. instead we got a OLB that has 2 tackles so far and a bunch of guys the 49ers didn't want...
__________________
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, 09:27 AM   #35
I like big (_|_)s.
 
TheMalcolmConnection's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Lexington, Virginia
Age: 32
Posts: 17,463
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

Speaking of the 49ers, I bet Lloyd is wishing he would have stayed. Smith is looking great.
__________________
Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.
TheMalcolmConnection is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 09:35 AM   #36
Impact Rookie
 
Twilbert07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Age: 49
Posts: 594
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

No, Saunders was not necessary. The offense could be lousy with or without him.
__________________
a Skins fan every day, every way.
Twilbert07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 09:41 AM   #37
Living Legend
 
That Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Springfield, VA
Age: 31
Posts: 16,246
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection View Post
Speaking of the 49ers, I bet Lloyd is wishing he would have stayed. Smith is looking great.
they didn't want to keep him, he might have been cut.
__________________
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, 09:53 AM   #38
Impact Rookie
 
VTSkins897's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Richmond, VA
Age: 31
Posts: 890
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

i often wonder that. or the flip side... if saunders is running the O, what's gibbs doing? not that i'd ever trade gibbs for saunders. we'll know in a few weeks whether the o starts rolling or not...

then we'll have another question. if it is indeed the case that it's just going to take time for the O to click... wouldn't it be smarter for us to use that time with a strong, young, potential franchise QB instead of slingshot brunell?
VTSkins897 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 10:06 AM   #39
Registered User
 
Pocket$ $traight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Fairfax, VA
Age: 38
Posts: 4,261
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

From my perspective, blaming Al Saunders is the easy thing to do and is incorrect.

Mark Brunell is the problem on offense. He is afraid to throw the ball. Saunders job is to get receivers open. Moss was open deep a few times last night. Brunell is either afraid to throw the ball or he physically cannot throw the ball.
Pocket$ $traight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 10:13 AM   #40
Playmaker
 
artmonkforhallofamein07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Charleston , SC
Posts: 4,658
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

Well I hate to say this but I have to. It is happening again. It's like fucking dejavue of 2000. We go to the playoffs the year before and then bring in alot of talent that is suppose to get us to the superbowl and we start out 0-2. Only this time instead of trading in Brad Johnson for JEFF FUCKIN GEORGE, we trade in our greatest asset in Gibbs play calling for Al Saunders. I know the offense will come around sometime, but seriously the goal for this year was home field advantage through out the playoffs and they aren't going to get that done. Thats just how I feel today after that worthless game last night. Whats our record against the Cowboys in last few years now 5-19. UGGGGGGGGGGG
__________________
Robert Griffin III welcome to the Washington Redskins!

Year 1 - NFC EAST Champions at 10-6

Year 2 - 3-10... Benched 14 weeks to late.....

Year 3 - Pure Awesomeness!!

http://site.fandangoracinginc.com/
artmonkforhallofamein07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 10:16 AM   #41
Camp Scrub
 
cowboykiller89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 68
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

It's simple, we don't have the players to execute Al Saunders offense. Don't start blaming Al, it's not his fault Mark Brunell can't handle the new offense.
__________________
For the love of God, PLEASE get the ball to Santana Moss!!!
cowboykiller89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 10:20 AM   #42
Impact Rookie
 
Twilbert07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Age: 49
Posts: 594
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cowboykiller89 View Post
It's simple, we don't have the players to execute Al Saunders offense. Don't start blaming Al, it's not his fault Mark Brunell can't handle the new offense.
That's a good point. Saunders needs a decent QB to run his offense. And at this point, Brunell is one of the league's lesser QBs. What a mistake it was to entrust the offense to him.
__________________
a Skins fan every day, every way.
Twilbert07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 10:42 AM   #43
Playmaker
 
Longtimefan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Germantown, Md.
Posts: 4,832
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by brianconner View Post
Far too often, players were just standing around, or going quarter speed, rather than playing like they want to win.

Many times, I saw linemen who would lose the outside or inside to the defensive guy and they'd just give up. You could see them just standing there, watching Brunell get hit or rushed.

Then there were the receivers, who wouldn't run full out unless they were the primary or secondary. I saw Brunell being forced to throw it away because the receivers simply gave up on him.

It looks more like the Skins of the 60s than it does a Gibbs coached team. If TV would show the sideline shots more, I bet you'd see more players sitting down on the bench than standing up and cheering the offense/defense on. They give the very definite impression of a team that doesn't think it can win.

So sad . . . and I've been a Redskins fan since the late 50s. This team is beginning to look like it's stuck on losing. Gibbs needs to immediately put his strong hand back into the team and shake 'em up good.

Welcome aboard brainconner, I see you have been playing close attention espically to the unspoken language on the sideline. Maybe team attitude needs a boost as well. We share one thing in common, we both go back a long ways. We've both seen a lot of Redskin football, but what I am seeing lately looks like one continuous game.
Longtimefan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 12:49 PM   #44
Playmaker
 
illdefined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: nyc
Age: 38
Posts: 2,631
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TAFKAS View Post
Well we can't underestimate Clinton Portis anymore, for those that have. For one thing, you know he would have laid out a few people with some blocks to give Brunell that extra second. Betts and Duckett don't compare to Portis as runners or as blockers.
absolutely dead on.

Ladell and T.J. (all 254 lbs of him) were directly responsible for two sacks, did you see that? i bet Mark feels alot safer passing with Clinton back there.
__________________
a fan. not a cheerleader.
illdefined is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 12:59 PM   #45
Playmaker
 
illdefined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: nyc
Age: 38
Posts: 2,631
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattyk72 View Post
I always hate to second guess things, but throughout the game tonight I just couldn't help but think, was bringing in Saunders a bad move?
yeah I'm shocked to hear this from you Matty, such a rare case of coach suspicion.

It's the elephant in the room. Throughout the game they kept showing last year's great offensive stats with the same personnel and the difference was night and day.

why did we try and fix what wasn't broken? our offense was well-oiled late last season just to be rebuilt from the ground up. makes absolutely no sense.

worst yet, if Gibbs felt it was imperative to rebuild (and ultimately redefine) the offense, why didn't he take the opportunity to put in its new driver, Campbell? why waste all the time and effort on Brunell learning and practicing this new system??
__________________
a fan. not a cheerleader.
illdefined 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 03:15 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 0.31717 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