Quote:
Originally Posted by MTRedskinsFan
[/B]
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?
|
Would Saunders stay on in a scenario where Greg Williams was head coach? If he does, great. However, we would lose Bugel and then we'd have to hunt for a new O-line coach. If Gibbs leaving does not jeopardize offensive continuity in any way, then I'm all for him retiring.
I am not advocating that Gibbs and Saunders collaboratively run the offense - that has been and would be disastrous as you point out. Would be great if we could have a cardboard cut-out of Gibbs on the sideline to keep coaching egos in check and turn over 4th and 1 type decisions to Saunders.