Al Saunders on the way out?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[freddyg12]

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.

I thought the O was farily good at the end of 06. Saunders had convinced Gibbs & Buges that zone blocking was the way to go, Betts was running through major holes & JC was looking good considering it was his first stint as a starter.

Yes, the O has been a major disappointment at times, mainly in the lack of scoring despite big yardage #s. This is more a factor of JC's development, see the stats from the Dallas & Tampa games. HE threw for major yardage but ended the games w/picks.

I would hope that Al gets a chance to at least state his case & explain the working relationship w/Gibbs. It would seem best for JC et al if he stays IMO.

[SBXVII]

I'll agree with that. I would imagine GW would want a top 10 offense. Al did not produce that at all for us. I would ask again why this is? Al's offense has produced with other teams why was it a flop with us? and will one more year bring it full circle? Do we give him one more year? or do we say adios and go with another OC.

[SmootSmack]

If Saunders goes, and Schwartz comes aboard as head coach (or even as Williams' top dog), you think they might make a run at Texas Tech coach Mike Leach? A buddy of mine who's a Titans fan tipped me off to this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/magazine/04coach.html

At least one N.F.L. head coach had taken a special interest in the Texas Tech offense and had been ordering its game tapes on Monday mornings. At least one N.F.L. defensive coordinator, Jim Schwartz of the Tennessee Titans, had stumbled upon Texas Tech accidentally and said, Oh, my. The surprise runner-up in the search earlier this year for a new San Francisco 49ers head coach, Schwartz had scrambled to answer a question: if he got the 49ers job, whom should he hire? He was just in his mid-30's, and his football career stopped at Georgetown (where he graduated with honors in economics), so he really hadn't thought about this before.

The 49ers had not bothered to interview college coaches for the head-coaching job in part because its front-office analysis found that most of the college coaches hired in the past 20 years to run N.F.L. teams had failed. But in Schwartz's view, college coaches tended to fail in the N.F.L. mainly because the pros hired the famous coaches from the old-money schools, on the premise that those who won the most games were the best coaches. But was this smart? Notre Dame might have a good football team, but how much of its success came from the desire of every Catholic in the country to play for Notre Dame?

Looking for fresh coaching talent, Schwartz analyzed the offensive and defensive statistics of what he called the "midlevel schools" in search of any that had enjoyed success out of proportion to their stature. On offense, Texas Tech's numbers leapt out as positively freakish: a midlevel school, playing against the toughest football schools in the country, with the nation's highest scoring offense.

But when Schwartz studied videotape of the Texas Tech offense, what he saw unsettled him. The offensive linemen positioned themselves between three and six feet apart - on extreme occasions, the five linemen stretched a good 15 yards across the field. At times it was difficult to tell the linemen from the receivers. Strictly speaking, they were not a line at all, just a row of dots. "The offensive line splits - you look at them, and you're just shocked," Schwartz said. "It scares people to see splits that are that wide."

The big gaps between the linemen made the quarterback seem more vulnerable - some defenders could seemingly run right between the blockers - but he wasn't. Stretching out the offensive line stretched out the defensive line too, forcing the most ferocious pass rushers several yards farther from the quarterback. It also opened up wide passing lanes through which even a short quarterback could see the whole field clearly. Leach spread out his receivers and backs too. The look was more flag than tackle football: a truly fantastic number of players racing around trying to catch passes on every play, and a quarterback surprisingly able to keep an eye on all of them

[Redskins247]

That's interesting...you have to admire the homework he put into that research. But as you know, these "gimmick" type offenses just usually don't work in the NFL with the speed and agility of the players at that level. Although...it does seem that the run and shoot, is almost making a little bit of a comeback now....just set up a little differently now.

[squrrelco3]

In Al's defense ...

His plays worked when the receivers weren't dropping sure money catches all over the place, Jason wasn't throwing it right to the other teams defenders, and Portis wasn't trying to run into the biggest pile of people he could find on the field...

I think he deserves at least one more year to try and make it right...he can call the perfect plays but the players still have to execute them properly.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by squrrelco3

In Al's defense ...

His plays worked when the receivers weren't dropping sure money catches all over the place, Jason wasn't throwing it right to the other teams defenders, and Portis wasn't trying to run into the biggest pile of people he could find on the field...

I think he deserves at least one more year to try and make it right...he can call the perfect plays but the players still have to execute them properly.

Nice post. You are right, Al Saunders should not be the fall guy. I guess Snyder wants to put his touch on the offense like when he hired Steve Spurrier.

[rk3025]

If I were Al, I would get ahead coaching job and take Todd and Rocky with me whom can read 700 pages and want to learn more

Originally Posted by squrrelco3

In Al's defense ...

His plays worked when the receivers weren't dropping sure money catches all over the place, Jason wasn't throwing it right to the other teams defenders, and Portis wasn't trying to run into the biggest pile of people he could find on the field...

I think he deserves at least one more year to try and make it right...he can call the perfect plays but the players still have to execute them properly.

[Campbell17]

Saunders would be happier if JC played like TC.

[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.