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, 01:09 PM   #46
Special Teams
 
61cad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Reston, VA
Posts: 296
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

We don't have the talent to run Al's offense?

Isn't it the coaches job to fit the players to game plan?

You can't change your players but you sure as hell can scheme your game plan to make your players productive!
61cad is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 09-18-2006, 01:18 PM   #47
The Starter
 
redsk1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,351
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

This game looked like the offense of 2 years ago. It didn't even look like last week's offense. Did anyone notice that?

Al Saunders resume is pretty damn good. I don't think he is the problem. We don't have the QB on the field to get the ball to our playmakers. We may not have the oline to get it done too. I don't recall Jacksonville having too many problems last week. They do have a qb that can make plays.
redsk1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 01:26 PM   #48
Impact Rookie
 
redrock-skins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 783
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by onlydarksets View Post
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?
Fair enough.
redrock-skins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 01:36 PM   #49
Camp Scrub
 
brianconner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

Thank you for the welcome, Longtimefan.

Yup, it seems that way, or maybe they're stuck in a Groundhog Day kinda thing. An endless loop, until they figure out The One Key Concept, whatever it is.
brianconner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 01:40 PM   #50
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 onlydarksets View Post
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?
you think Saunders doesn't like to run?? why do you know the name Priest Holmes? or Larry Johnson? Both Gibbs and Saunders are well regarded coaches precisely because of the run.

those runs on 1st and 2nd down may have meant something if Ladell was more than a backup, and T.J. was more than straight ahead battering ram.

Ladell and T.J. are absolutely NOTHING SPECIAL. they run into space in front of them, but neither see the field laterally to find their own holes or make anyone coming from the side miss.

you know who does see the field surprisingly well (besides Portis of course)? SELLERS. that guy has a genuine knack man, he can sense the field!

that screen pass last night and those carries in preseason - not to mention all the TD passes last year - really show his awareness of the field. unlike Ladell and T.J, he actually moves his feet to avoid guys not directly in front of him. and unlike Ladell at least, when Sellers has to put his head down and hit somebody, he actually moves that somebody.
__________________
a fan. not a cheerleader.
illdefined is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 02:03 PM   #51
Impact Rookie
 
VTSkins897's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Richmond, VA
Age: 31
Posts: 890
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

shake 'n' bake!
VTSkins897 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 02:09 PM   #52
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 illdefined View Post
you think Saunders doesn't like to run?? why do you know the name Priest Holmes? or Larry Johnson? Both Gibbs and Saunders are well regarded coaches precisely because of the run.
Huh? Did I say that? I thought all I said was that we need to run the ball more than 17 times in a game.
__________________
Stop reading my signature.
onlydarksets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 02:14 PM   #53
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 onlydarksets View Post
Huh? Did I say that? I thought all I said was that we need to run the ball more than 17 times in a game.
sorry then why do you think they weren't running Saunder's playcalls?
__________________
a fan. not a cheerleader.
illdefined is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 02:25 PM   #54
Playmaker
 
onlydarksets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: all up in your business
Posts: 2,693
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

Oh, I see - I was a bit obtuse. My point was that the announcers were suggesting that Gibbs was much more involved in the offensive game plan for this week. For my part, I didn't see much motion on offense (compared to the beginning of the week last week), and, generally, it looked like the offense from last year much more so than the one from last week (of course, I had a few more beers last week than this week, so my memory might not be 100% on).

I'm all for the run - I just hope that Gibbs isn't pulling the plug on Saunders just yet, because I think Al has the pieces he needs (QB concerns aside) to have a high-powered offense.
__________________
Stop reading my signature.
onlydarksets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 02:39 PM   #55
Impact Rookie
 
AlvinWalton'sNeckBrace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Fayetteville, NC
Age: 29
Posts: 896
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

I just don't get why when our offense started to show signs of life at the end of last year...we go and get an OC with a different philosophy to change an already successful team...This organization pisses me off.

On another note, the skins, panthers, and bucks are all 0-2 now...I wonder which one will pull it out. Right now, I'd say we've got the worst odds of doing so.
AlvinWalton'sNeckBrace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 03:26 PM   #56
F the Shannys

 
CrazyCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,879
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

I won't put direct blame on Saunders shoulders, but at the end of the day something has to get done. After we finished so strong last year our offense has been a disaster so far.

If it's the 700 page playbook then let's trim it down. If it's Brunell then let's get him out of there. I mean what was Todd Collins brought in to do?

Whatever it is we need to get it fixed IMMEDIATELY. Every game is a playoff game from here on out. If we lose next week it's over.

PS - Despite our offensive struggles, our defense is even worse!
CrazyCanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 06:10 PM   #57
Special Teams
 
charlielyons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Richmond, Va
Posts: 394
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

we need to put collins in, campbell is not readt but at least collins knows the offense, he cant do any worse
charlielyons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 06:37 PM   #58
Impact Rookie
 
vaoutlaws2006's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Fayettenam, NC
Age: 42
Posts: 806
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

how soon we foget last year. We went 7 quarters without a touchdown last season. Last night was similar to last year in big d except this time there was no comeback. When saunders first went to kc it took a few games before the offense started to click. We need to give this a chance. 0-2 yes it looks and sounds bad but its not the end of the world. We need to get a win this weekend otherwise it is time for Jason Campbell to see some playing time. Again with no portis and springs what were we actually expecting last night. One more quick thought.....can we see some rock cartwright playing running back?
__________________
The future is obviously right now!
vaoutlaws2006 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2006, 09:47 PM   #59
No new threads for you
 
pg86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,959
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

You All Grilled Me When I Was Calling For Al's Head In Preseason! I Told U So Give The Calling Back To Joe Gibbs!
pg86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2006, 10:24 PM   #60
RG Glee
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 35
Posts: 8,293
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

I think the reason the passing game is stalling has nothing to do with Mark Brunell and everything to do with the offensive line. And nobody on that line has forgotten how to play football. They've had some hiccups with penalties, but by and large the problem is blitz pickups. They don't have the protection schemes down yet. Brunell got chased around in both games and had no time to throw.

Secondly, the offensive line isn't run blocking very well right now either. They need more time to practice these schemes. Opponents are sitting back in Cover 2 because we don't have Portis. But even against the Vikes, Portis only went for 3.9 per carry, hardly scary.

It's all about the line right now. It's the backbone of an offense, and they clearly have work to do in order to learn the protection schemes better and to practice executing their blocking assignments on running plays.

SO... if we didn't bring in Saunders, this would not be an issue. We'd be using the old protection schemes and would probably look a lot better. But bringing in Saunders was a long-term type of move. It might hurt right now, but we'll be better for it in the end. Hopefully we're not 0-5 before we turn it around.
Schneed10 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 08:24 AM.


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 0.33062 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