Al Saunders on the way out?

[Campbell17]

Saunders would be happier if JC played like TC.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I won't be surprised if Saunders gets dumped especially if GW takes over. Let's face it, other than the 4 game streak his offense was disappointing to say the least.

That's not Saunders though. That's us not having a running game, or the ability to block for one.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

That's not Saunders though. That's us not having a running game, or the ability to block for one.

Regardless, he didn't do what he paid him to do. We paid him to put up a top flight offense and we got an inconsistent, mediocre one. It happened on his watch.

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Regardless, he didn't do what he paid him to do. We paid him to put up a top flight offense and we got an inconsistent, mediocre one. It happened on his watch.

but did gibbs have some cuffs on saunders hands, not letting him call the offense he was brought here to call ?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Regardless, he didn't do what he paid him to do. We paid him to put up a top flight offense and we got an inconsistent, mediocre one. It happened on his watch.

Okay, so?

Look, if the money was really a problem, we shouldn't have given him a lot of it to bring him here. If we were expecting some magical ability just because we paid him a lot, I don't know what to tell you.

I think he's done just fine, and that if you were measuring anyone in his position against the value of their contract, there is no way anyone could ever live up to that much money. It's just not possible.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Regardless, he didn't do what he paid him to do. We paid him to put up a top flight offense and we got an inconsistent, mediocre one. It happened on his watch.

No, it happened on Gibbs watch. He (Gibbs) made it very clear that, ultimately, this was Gibbs offense. While I haven't been impressed with Saunders, I don't think it fair to blame him for ALL the offensive woes. Gibbs may have "relinquished" the playcalling but, IMHO, this was a modified Gibbs offense.

We constantly harp on the naysayers for blaming Gibbs and crediting others. Sorry, in converse, Gibbs get the credit but also gets the blame.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Okay, so?

Look, if the money was really a problem, we shouldn't have given him a lot of it to bring him here. If we were expecting some magical ability just because we paid him a lot, I don't know what to tell you.

I think he's done just fine, and that if you were measuring anyone in his position against the value of their contract, there is no way anyone could ever live up to that much money. It's just not possible.

Not saying the money was the problem, just saying he didn't produce. Hence, he didn't do what he paid him to do. Were you happy with the results of his offense?

[love them hogs]

I think the skins need to give al 1 more year.There were times during games when I felt like I could really tell when Gibbs would take over play calling.I cant give any specific examples unfortunatly, its just a gut feeling. It felt like we would run two different offenses during some games.I believe Saunders should get a chance to run the offense without a lot of influence from the head coach, whoever that may be.If at the end of next year nothing changes then it is time to part ways.

[SmootSmack]

More often than not, we heard about Gibbs handcuffing Saunders' offense. Which I always found rather reedycholuz (that's for you Brud) to say when the offense faltered it was Gibbs, but when it performed it was "look what the Al Saunders can do."

I think what happened was that their philosophies maybe weren't as closely matched as they had thought. Yet, as we saw for example in the Bears game, Gibbs' max protect, motion schemes can coexist with Saunders' aerial attack.

But bottom line, with Gibbs out of the picture now (feel weird saying it like that), there should be no confusion that it's Saunders' offense. So I think we need to keep him one more year and let him prove his full worth here.

And I think to further emphasize it's his show we need to pare down the coaching staff. You've got Saunders as Assoc. Head Coach-Offense. Bugel as Assistant Head Coach-Offense (at least you know he's an offensive line svengali), Don Breaux as Offensive Coordinator (what's his role exactly), and Jack Burns as Offensive Assistant (and his role?)

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

More often than not, we heard about Gibbs handcuffing Saunders' offense. Which I always found rather reedycholuz (that's for you Brud) to say when the offense faltered it was Gibbs, but when it performed it was "look what the Al Saunders can do."

I think what happened was that their philosophies maybe weren't as closely matched as they had thought. Yet, as we saw for example in the Bears game, Gibbs' max protect, motion schemes can coexist with Saunders' aerial attack.

But bottom line, with Gibbs out of the picture now (feel weird saying it like that), there should be no confusion that it's Saunders' offense. So I think we need to keep him one more year and let him prove his full worth here.

And I think to further emphasize it's his show we need to pare down the coaching staff. You've got Saunders as Assoc. Head Coach-Offense. Bugel as Assistant Head Coach-Offense (at least you know he's an offensive line svengali), Don Breaux as Offensive Coordinator (what's his role exactly), and Jack Burns as Offensive Assistant (and his role?)

I think for the first time all season, I agree 100% with you.. It'd be ridicules I think to get rid of Saunders without seeing what he can do with TRULY full reign to call the games for a season.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Not saying the money was the problem, just saying he didn't produce. Hence, he didn't do what he paid him to do. Were you happy with the results of his offense?

On the whole, yes. We did a pretty average job, but a much better than average job in the passing game, which is the most important thing.

The running games' ineffectiveness certainly held us back, but that's not the coaches fault. We simply do not have the talent up front to be any better than average.

If Saunders is to blame for anything, it's that the receivers weren't always ready to play, and he's a former receivers coach. Outside of that, you can't be disappointed with anything he's done.

[backrow]

It's not always the schemes.

C. Portis was injurred last year.

Two O-Linemen out for the year this year. Played a rook FA and a re-tread wannabe.

HOF Coach Gibbs did not switch to Campbell until late last year so we had Brunnell, and we know how that went!

We have such short memories.

Not excuses, but simply sound reasons for lack of productivity.

[WillH]

Originally Posted by backrow

It's not always the schemes.

C. Portis was injurred last year.

Two O-Linemen out for the year this year. Played a rook FA and a re-tread wannabe.

HOF Coach Gibbs did not switch to Campbell until late last year so we had Brunnell, and we know how that went!

We have such short memories.

Not excuses, but simply sound reasons for lack of productivity.

On top of that:

His complex system apparently takes awhile to learn. So you have to give him a pass for year one.

JC obviously doesn't know the system well enough yet (as TC most certainly DOES), and TC simply doesn't have the talent to be elite, even if he knows what he is doing in the Offense. So you have to give him a pass for year two.

I will agree that he has not proved himself yet, but Im sorry Matty there is very little evidence in the way of grounds to dismiss him. If you consider what has held this team back Offensively the past two years, there is little to prove that it has been the result of Saunders or his system. With the effectiveness of his offensive scheme in the past I think it would be down right foolish to let him go without giving him a legitimate shot at producing what he is expected to.

Not to say that you are calling for his head. I understand that you were simply saying that you wouldn't be surprised if Danny felt this way and canned him for it. But I wholeheartedly disagree, if Snyder gave him the boot I think most people would be both surprised and disappointed.

[MTK]

Bottom line, Saunders didn't get it done. We can list all the excuses we want, at the end of the day his offenses ranked 13th and 15th overall. I'm not saying it's all his fault but in the end someone has to take the fall. Add in the fact that he and GW have different football philosophies and the writing is on the all for Al assuming GW gets the job.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

More often than not, we heard about Gibbs handcuffing Saunders' offense. Which I always found rather reedycholuz (that's for you Brud) to say when the offense faltered it was Gibbs, but when it performed it was "look what the Al Saunders can do."

I think what happened was that their philosophies maybe weren't as closely matched as they had thought. Yet, as we saw for example in the Bears game, Gibbs' max protect, motion schemes can coexist with Saunders' aerial attack.

But bottom line, with Gibbs out of the picture now (feel weird saying it like that), there should be no confusion that it's Saunders' offense. So I think we need to keep him one more year and let him prove his full worth here.

And I think to further emphasize it's his show we need to pare down the coaching staff. You've got Saunders as Assoc. Head Coach-Offense. Bugel as Assistant Head Coach-Offense (at least you know he's an offensive line svengali), Don Breaux as Offensive Coordinator (what's his role exactly), and Jack Burns as Offensive Assistant (and his role?)

Sounds good to me. If the offense doesn't measure up to Saunders' hype, then we need to go in a new direction the season after that. By season three, everybody should have his system down pat. There should be no reason (injuries or not) for a lack of productivity.