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, 12:52 AM   #1
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 41
Posts: 80,572
Al Saunders: was he necessary?

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?

6-8 weeks from now this could all be a distant memory and the offense could be firing away on all cylinders, but right now it sure seems like learning a 700 page playbook has this offense completely out of wack.

I thought we finally found our identity last year down the stretch when we started pounding teams with the power running game. We had the screens and deep stuff to Moss, the underneath stuff with Cooley, all we needed were some more weapons. Enter Lloyd and Randle El. But right now it seems like we are back to square one. No identity on offense. We're running outside the tackles all the time. Brunell seems like he has no idea where he's going with the ball when he drops back, Moss doesn't even seem to be part of the game plan, same for Cooley... it's like a freaking train wreck right now. Plus we submitted Campbell to learning his 6th offense in as many years and undoubtedly stunted his development by a year.

What do you guys think. If you could do it over, would you have wanted Saunders? Or should we have just added some players and kept building what Gibbs had put in place?
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 09-18-2006, 12:55 AM   #2
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 44,606
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

He was only necessary in the sense that Gibbs wanted a more hands on role with the entire operation (on and off the field), and do that he needed someone like Saunders to run the offense on a day to day basis. As much as Gibbs has praised Saunders, he's not a significant upgrade over Gibbs as an offensive mastermind. They come from the same tree, and Gibbs knows to run Super Bowl winning offenses. Maybe they're not always flashy, but they win.

So no he probably wasn't necessary if we're talking about did they need him to be more productive. But for what Gibbs wanted (and that's what's important), yes he was and is very necessary. It's early still
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 12:58 AM   #3
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 41
Posts: 80,572
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

Yeah I know it's early. Like I said, 6-8 weeks from now we might look at this thread and laugh.

But if you ask me, there's no way we're 0-2 right now had we stuck with Gibbs' offense and him calling the plays.

Bringing in a new coordinator and system might pay off in the long run, but in the short run it's hurting us. Hopefully we just don't fall into too big of a hole before we start to climb out.
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 12:59 AM   #4
MVP
 
mooby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NoVa
Age: 26
Posts: 11,814
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

I'm not making judgements this early into the season, maybe if the offense sucks for two seasons straight under Saunders then i definitely would, but it's a new offense, it takes time, and i've heard a couple people tell me to wait a few weeks, about midseason it should start clicking, and if not then, then it definitely should be next season.
mooby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 01:00 AM   #5
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 44,606
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

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.
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 01:09 AM   #6
Thank You, Sean.
 
Gmanc711's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Age: 28
Posts: 7,499
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

Well...I think maybe last week we could have won with a Gibbs run offense just becuase everyone would have been more comfortable with that....

I dont think there was any helping our cause this week. Its really hard to say how long it takes for them to "learn" this offense; I really dont know what goes into it, so I'm trying to reserve judgement on Saunders till week 5-7.
__________________
#21
Gmanc711 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 01:23 AM   #7
Impact Rookie
 
railcon56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 922
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

Injuries are a part of the game..so we lost Portis you adapt.... but all of our talent great recievers and no QB to get the ball there.If anything Saunders is negligent in allowing an old ass Qb that cant possibly execute his offense to remain the starter...Show some testicles pull his ass out...
__________________
Run or Pass and Score ..We Want Alot More!!!!
railcon56 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 01:33 AM   #8
Pro Bowl
 
Beemnseven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Age: 40
Posts: 5,293
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

I don't believe what we're seeing is the result of Al Saunders. Something tells me that Gibbs would be having the same problems if he was calling the plays.

The O-line can't pass or run block. Something dreadful has happened to that group of guys. Brunell is performing exactly the way all the naysayers said he would play. Those two factors have a direct impact on Moss, Cooley, Lloyd and the running game.

But I seriously doubt Saunders and his playbook (which came from the same coaching tree) is the cause of all of it.

We're seeing piss-poor execution from the players plain and simple.
Beemnseven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 01:37 AM   #9
Impact Rookie
 
redrock-skins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 783
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

The players did not call run plays on just about every 1st and 2nd down. We didn't even try to go deep.

Madden said it, "The Redskins are afraid to throw".
redrock-skins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 01:37 AM   #10
Playmaker
 
Longtimefan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Germantown, Md.
Posts: 4,832
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

All of us here, as well as personell people around the league felt at the time the addition of Al Saunders was the greatest plus for the team this offseason. Things are definately not going good at the moment and when this happens we start looking at everything a little more critically, and begin pointing to area's we think gives us the quickest fix. Right now there is no quick fix for this team because the problems we're experiencing are multiple, and if we're looking for someone to blame it can be spread throughout the entire team. I beleive eventually we will work our way out of this funk we're in and render out doubts unfounded. We all witnessed blame tonight, but I'm hoping we'll play our way out of it despite how hard it is to be optomistic at this point in time.
Longtimefan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 01:39 AM   #11
MVP
 
12thMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: washington, D.C.
Posts: 11,456
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

But here's the thing Beemnseven, if we see the same thing if Gibbs was still calling the plays, why bring in Saunders?? That was the point, he was supposedly a genius at perhaps covering diffeciencies.

I tried my best to reserve my judgement about the Al Saunders signing. In fact, I showed very little enthuiasm about it. I just wanted to wait and see. Well, under Gibbs last year...Moss had a record year, Portis had a record year, uhhh umm, Brunell had a record year! I thought at best the offensive was one or maybe two players away from taking us to the next level. I thought Gibbs play calling needed some tweaking but not overhauling...seems like it's a case of one step forward and two steps back.

Honestly, unless Saunders somehow turns this offense into a thirty point a game machine, someone please, please tell me why in the hell did we bring him here??

It's not like he won any Super Bowls at KC!!!
12thMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 01:43 AM   #12
MVP
 
12thMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: washington, D.C.
Posts: 11,456
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Longtimefan View Post
All of us here, as well as personell people around the league felt at the time the addition of Al Saunders was the greatest plus for the team this offseason. Things are definately not going good at the moment and when this happens we start looking at everything a little more critically, and begin pointing to area's we think gives us the quickest fix. Right now there is no quick fix for this team because the problems we're experiencing are multiple, and if we're looking for someone to blame it can be spread throughout the entire team. I beleive eventually we will work our way out of this funk we're in and render out doubts unfounded. We all witnessed blame tonight, but I'm hoping we'll play our way out of it despite how hard it is to be optomistic at this point in time.

Longtime, with the highest payroll in the NFL and the highest paid coaching staff in the NFL, yes sir, you must start to point some fingers. There is no time to play out this funk. There is no time to hope Brunell comes around in Jacksonville. The troops have to rallied tomorrow morning. Changes must be iminent.
12thMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 01:47 AM   #13
^21^
 
Luxorreb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Age: 42
Posts: 1,609
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

Looked like he was studying pretty hard during the game.
hmmmmmm. NO TDs by the offense...
__________________
GO SKINS!!! ^21^
Luxorreb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 01:53 AM   #14
Impact Rookie
 
redrock-skins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 783
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12thMan View Post
Longtime, with the highest payroll in the NFL and the highest paid coaching staff in the NFL, yes sir, you must start to point some fingers. There is no time to play out this funk. There is no time to hope Brunell comes around in Jacksonville. The troops have to rallied tomorrow morning. Changes must be iminent.
That sums it up. I've tried to stay positive until tonight. Each year, its excuse after excuse. In my dreamworld, I wake up tommorrow and find Campbell named the starter and Saunders fired and just let Gibbs call the plays.
redrock-skins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 02:03 AM   #15
Pro Bowl
 
Beemnseven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Age: 40
Posts: 5,293
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by redrock-skins View Post
The players did not call run plays on just about every 1st and 2nd down. We didn't even try to go deep.

Madden said it, "The Redskins are afraid to throw".
"...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.
Beemnseven 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 06:44 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 0.33416 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