Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

It's simple, we don't have the players to execute Al Saunders offense. Don't start blaming Al, it's not his fault Mark Brunell can't handle the new offense.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

[quote=cowboykiller89;216770]It's simple, we don't have the players to execute Al Saunders offense. Don't start blaming Al, it's not his fault Mark Brunell can't handle the new offense.[/quote]

That's a good point. Saunders needs a decent QB to run his offense. And at this point, Brunell is one of the league's lesser QBs. What a mistake it was to entrust the offense to him.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

[QUOTE=brianconner;216674]Far too often, players were just standing around, or going quarter speed, rather than playing like they want to win.

Many times, I saw linemen who would lose the outside or inside to the defensive guy and they'd just give up. You could see them just standing there, watching Brunell get hit or rushed.

Then there were the receivers, who wouldn't run full out unless they were the primary or secondary. I saw Brunell being forced to throw it away because the receivers simply gave up on him.

It looks more like the Skins of the 60s than it does a Gibbs coached team. If TV would show the sideline shots more, I bet you'd see more players sitting down on the bench than standing up and cheering the offense/defense on. They give the very definite impression of a team that doesn't think it can win.

So sad . . . and I've been a Redskins fan since the late 50s. This team is beginning to look like it's stuck on losing. Gibbs needs to immediately put his strong hand back into the team and shake 'em up good.[/QUOTE]


Welcome aboard brainconner, I see you have been playing close attention espically to the unspoken language on the sideline. Maybe team attitude needs a boost as well. We share one thing in common, we both go back a long ways. We've both seen a lot of Redskin football, but what I am seeing lately looks like one continuous game.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS;216453]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.[/QUOTE]

absolutely dead on.

Ladell and T.J. (all 254 lbs of him) were directly responsible for two sacks, did you see that? i bet Mark feels alot safer passing with Clinton back there.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;216436]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?[/QUOTE]

yeah I'm shocked to hear this from you Matty, such a rare case of coach suspicion.

It's the elephant in the room. Throughout the game they kept showing last year's great offensive stats with the same personnel and the difference was night and day.

why did we try and fix what wasn't broken? our offense was well-oiled late last season just to be rebuilt from the ground up. makes absolutely no sense.

worst yet, if Gibbs felt it was imperative to rebuild (and ultimately redefine) the offense, why didn't he take the opportunity to put in its new driver, Campbell? why waste all the time and effort on Brunell learning and practicing this new system??

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

We don't have the talent to run Al's offense?

Isn't it the coaches job to fit the players to game plan?

You can't change your players but you sure as hell can scheme your game plan to make your players productive!

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

This game looked like the offense of 2 years ago. It didn't even look like last week's offense. Did anyone notice that?

Al Saunders resume is pretty damn good. I don't think he is the problem. We don't have the QB on the field to get the ball to our playmakers. We may not have the oline to get it done too. I don't recall Jacksonville having too many problems last week. They do have a qb that can make plays.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets;216668]Lets put this to rest. Here is the breakdown by quarter:

[code][FONT=Courier New]
FIRST SECOND
Pass Run Pass Run
Q1 3 1 2 2
Q2 1 3 2 2
Q3 1 4 0 1
Q4 7 1 5 0

[/FONT] [/code] Obviously, we ran on 1st/2nd downs a LOT more in the first three quarters. We gave up the run in the fourth when we had no choice.

If the announcers are to be believed, I blame this one on Gibbs. They quoted him as saying that we were going to run the ball a LOT more tonight because he thought 17 touches was not enough (FWIW, I agree). However, that suggests he took some control back from Saunders. How the hell are the players supposed to learn the system if Saunders isn't allowed to run it?[/QUOTE]

Fair enough.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

Thank you for the welcome, Longtimefan.

Yup, it seems that way, or maybe they're stuck in a Groundhog Day kinda thing. An endless loop, until they figure out The One Key Concept, whatever it is.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets;216668]Lets put this to rest. Here is the breakdown by quarter:

[code][FONT=Courier New]
FIRST SECOND
Pass Run Pass Run
Q1 3 1 2 2
Q2 1 3 2 2
Q3 1 4 0 1
Q4 7 1 5 0

[/FONT] [/code] Obviously, we ran on 1st/2nd downs a LOT more in the first three quarters. We gave up the run in the fourth when we had no choice.

If the announcers are to be believed, I blame this one on Gibbs. They quoted him as saying that we were going to run the ball a LOT more tonight because he thought 17 touches was not enough (FWIW, I agree). However, that suggests he took some control back from Saunders. How the hell are the players supposed to learn the system if Saunders isn't allowed to run it?[/QUOTE]

you think Saunders doesn't like to run?? why do you know the name Priest Holmes? or Larry Johnson? Both Gibbs and Saunders are well regarded coaches precisely because of the run.

those runs on 1st and 2nd down may have meant something if Ladell was more than a backup, and T.J. was more than straight ahead battering ram.

Ladell and T.J. are absolutely NOTHING SPECIAL. they run into space in front of them, but neither see the field laterally to find their own holes or make anyone coming from the side miss.

you know who does see the field surprisingly well (besides Portis of course)? SELLERS. that guy has a genuine knack man, he can sense the field!

that screen pass last night and those carries in preseason - not to mention all the TD passes last year - really show his awareness of the field. unlike Ladell and T.J, he actually moves his feet to avoid guys not directly in front of him. and unlike Ladell at least, when Sellers has to put his head down and hit somebody, he actually moves that somebody.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

shake 'n' bake!

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

[quote=illdefined;217027]you think Saunders doesn't like to run?? why do you know the name Priest Holmes? or Larry Johnson? Both Gibbs and Saunders are well regarded coaches precisely because of the run.[/quote]

Huh? Did I say that? I thought all I said was that we need to run the ball more than 17 times in a game.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets;217055]Huh? Did I say that? I thought all I said was that we need to run the ball more than 17 times in a game.[/QUOTE]

sorry then why do you think they weren't running Saunder's playcalls?

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

Oh, I see - I was a bit obtuse. My point was that the announcers were suggesting that Gibbs was much more involved in the offensive game plan for this week. For my part, I didn't see much motion on offense (compared to the beginning of the week last week), and, generally, it looked like the offense from last year much more so than the one from last week (of course, I had a few more beers last week than this week, so my memory might not be 100% on).

I'm all for the run - I just hope that Gibbs isn't pulling the plug on Saunders just yet, because I think Al has the pieces he needs (QB concerns aside) to have a high-powered offense.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

I just don't get why when our offense started to show signs of life at the end of last year...we go and get an OC with a different philosophy to change an already successful team...This organization pisses me off.

On another note, the skins, panthers, and bucks are all 0-2 now...I wonder which one will pull it out. Right now, I'd say we've got the worst odds of doing so.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

I won't put direct blame on Saunders shoulders, but at the end of the day something has to get done. After we finished so strong last year our offense has been a disaster so far.

If it's the 700 page playbook then let's trim it down. If it's Brunell then let's get him out of there. I mean what was Todd Collins brought in to do?

Whatever it is we need to get it fixed IMMEDIATELY. Every game is a playoff game from here on out. If we lose next week it's over.

PS - Despite our offensive struggles, our defense is even worse! :madani:

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

we need to put collins in, campbell is not readt but at least collins knows the offense, he cant do any worse

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

how soon we foget last year. We went 7 quarters without a touchdown last season. Last night was similar to last year in big d except this time there was no comeback. When saunders first went to kc it took a few games before the offense started to click. We need to give this a chance. 0-2 yes it looks and sounds bad but its not the end of the world. We need to get a win this weekend otherwise it is time for Jason Campbell to see some playing time. Again with no portis and springs what were we actually expecting last night. One more quick thought.....can we see some rock cartwright playing running back?

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

You All Grilled Me When I Was Calling For Al's Head In Preseason! I Told U So Give The Calling Back To Joe Gibbs!

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

I think the reason the passing game is stalling has nothing to do with Mark Brunell and everything to do with the offensive line. And nobody on that line has forgotten how to play football. They've had some hiccups with penalties, but by and large the problem is blitz pickups. They don't have the protection schemes down yet. Brunell got chased around in both games and had no time to throw.

Secondly, the offensive line isn't run blocking very well right now either. They need more time to practice these schemes. Opponents are sitting back in Cover 2 because we don't have Portis. But even against the Vikes, Portis only went for 3.9 per carry, hardly scary.

It's all about the line right now. It's the backbone of an offense, and they clearly have work to do in order to learn the protection schemes better and to practice executing their blocking assignments on running plays.

SO... if we didn't bring in Saunders, this would not be an issue. We'd be using the old protection schemes and would probably look a lot better. But bringing in Saunders was a long-term type of move. It might hurt right now, but we'll be better for it in the end. Hopefully we're not 0-5 before we turn it around.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

Of course Saunders has nothing to do with the defense. And they've been way more disappointing than the offense.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

I haven't read all of the posts in this thread, but... I agree with the questioning of the Al Saunders thing. I don't dislike the guy and am not calling for a resignation, but it took us 2 years to get Gibb's offense up and running with the right people....

It seemed like after we got to the playoffs, why re-do everything. Bringing in a couple of explosive recievers should've made our offense click better and left more things open up to us.

Last year, you take away moss and single cover everyone else... leave a spy in the middle and we're done...

Saunder's offense is supposed to Pass to open up the Run, right? I havent seen that since the first two series in the Minnesota game. After that its been run run throw it out of bounds and punt... repeat.

Thats like more of a mundane gibbs based offense not clicking right. I dunno, but I did feel like we're setting ourselves up with excuses for the next two years with Al Saunders and Jason Campbell. I would've been less nervous with Brunell running the same offense with more recievers around him this year.

Now, this year we have a new offense to learn.. and next year we have a new QB to learn the offense and his recievers... too many excuses set up to not succeed scares me a bit.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

Saunders offense needs a drop back QB. It is the same offense they ran with the Rams and KC.

Brunell is a bootleg/ roll out QB.

The offense will not work unless we bench Brunell and put in Collins.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

[quote=joegibbsuperbowl;217738]Saunders offense needs a drop back QB. It is the same offense they ran with the Rams and KC.


Brunell is a bootleg/ roll out QB.

The offense will not work unless we bench Brunell and put in Collins.[/quote]

What did I say?? I know it sounds like a bad idea..but this offense would be dynamite with collins at the helm simply because as long as the line holds up he can bomb one downfield to that dangerous reciving unit we have! Or run it up the gut with portis..or hell...with this offense we could run sweeps the line needs to block though. Yes Collins is pretty much second rate to Brunell Stat wise and stuff but think about it...Collins did ok with the bills didn't he?

Im rethinking my position on this because Cambell really isn't gonna do much better than brunell with this new system because He isnt used to it, Collins would He has experience with the system, and despite Collins muff ups in preseason try to remember that was not the starting O line or the starting O he was dealing with, and that he scored the only points in preseason right? If Brunell can't learn this system in time.....ie this weekend and the next week then put in collins.

If we keep Cambell and we keep this system..and Gibbs sticks around, and we can actually maintain what we have on offense in time we probably will be dominant....we do need to incorperate some of Gibbs plays into that playbook though...Gibbs roll outs and pull traps work at every level when u have a line!

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

Collins was mediocre at best with the Bills. Because you know the system doesn't necessarily mean you're the best choice to execute it

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

We improved our O last year, but if i remember right we weren't exactly burning it up the last 3-4 games of the year. We struggled. We really struggled against good defenses.

So to say we would have been much different in Gibb's O, we can't say for sure.

Al Saunders has a pretty good resume, but requires a decent qb to lead the team. Yes, alot of the blame goes to the o line but alot of blame goes to the qb, as well.

So, i think Al S. will be a good thing for this team especially if our qb steps up and makes some plays. There were several times when Brunell "rolled" into the blitz, instead of stepping up and finding the right man.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

It's funny how people, at the end of last season, were begging for an offensive coordinator, and now several appear to be thinking...maybe we should've kept things the same from last year. This is what I preached on last year....all we needed were a couple upgrades in the WR department. I like Saunders and think he will ultimately give us a great offense, but maybe this was the if it's not broken (that much anyway) why fix it situation.