Quote:
Originally Posted by hurrykaine
I know this started out as a positive "why we need Gibbs thread" instead of the usual "Gibbs must go" thread that emerges after a loss.
IMO, Gibbs is a positive influence on the team to the extent that he commands player respect and gets the players to believe in what we're doing. Almost any other coach, and our bunch would've mailed it in for the season.
Gibbs has also assembled a coaching staff that couldn't possibly be assembled without his presence. Should Gibbs be gone next year, would Saunders stay? Not sure, unless he was offered the head coaching job. Bugel would almost certainly retire as well. I think Saunders staying on next year is critical to our success, given Campbell's familiarity and comfort executing the offense.
If Saunders staying is dependent upon Gibbs staying, then I'm all for Gibbs staying. Gibbs without Saunders would be useless.
|
I don't follow your logic here for a couple of reasons. When Gibbs brought in GW it was understood he was in line next for the main job. Why would Saunders agree to come in, knowing that, and then leave when he actually has the opportunity to run the offense w/o any outside influence (assuming Gibbs leaves)? That makes no sense. If anything Saunders stock has fallen some and he would like to prove he can create the kind of production everyone witnessed back in KC.
Second, the offense has looked "confused" until they put the ball in JC's hands. A lot of folks blame the confusion on the fact that Gibbs/Saunders were trying to somehow compromise in the gameplan - Saunders might call the plays but then Gibbs would admit in a press conference that he regularly influences the playcalling. Result: lack of cohesion, gameplan constantly was out of sync. So my argument is let one guy or the other do the friggin job w/o the confusion. Again, some guys think Gibbs should take control, I've long thought Saunders should take control. But is sounds like you're making the argument that they go best together. Didn't the first half of the season prove otherwise?