Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

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?

6-8 weeks from now this could all be a distant memory and the offense could be firing away on all cylinders, but right now it sure seems like learning a 700 page playbook has this offense completely out of wack.

I thought we finally found our identity last year down the stretch when we started pounding teams with the power running game. We had the screens and deep stuff to Moss, the underneath stuff with Cooley, all we needed were some more weapons. Enter Lloyd and Randle El. But right now it seems like we are back to square one. No identity on offense. We're running outside the tackles all the time. Brunell seems like he has no idea where he's going with the ball when he drops back, Moss doesn't even seem to be part of the game plan, same for Cooley... it's like a freaking train wreck right now. Plus we submitted Campbell to learning his 6th offense in as many years and undoubtedly stunted his development by a year.

What do you guys think. If you could do it over, would you have wanted Saunders? Or should we have just added some players and kept building what Gibbs had put in place?

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

He was only necessary in the sense that Gibbs wanted a more hands on role with the entire operation (on and off the field), and do that he needed someone like Saunders to run the offense on a day to day basis. As much as Gibbs has praised Saunders, he's not a significant upgrade over Gibbs as an offensive mastermind. They come from the same tree, and Gibbs knows to run Super Bowl winning offenses. Maybe they're not always flashy, but they win.

So no he probably wasn't necessary if we're talking about did they need him to be more productive. But for what Gibbs wanted (and that's what's important), yes he was and is very necessary. It's early still

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

Yeah I know it's early. Like I said, 6-8 weeks from now we might look at this thread and laugh.

But if you ask me, there's no way we're 0-2 right now had we stuck with Gibbs' offense and him calling the plays.

Bringing in a new coordinator and system might pay off in the long run, but in the short run it's hurting us. Hopefully we just don't fall into too big of a hole before we start to climb out.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

I'm not making judgements this early into the season, maybe if the offense sucks for two seasons straight under Saunders then i definitely would, but it's a new offense, it takes time, and i've heard a couple people tell me to wait a few weeks, about midseason it should start clicking, and if not then, then it definitely should be next season.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

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.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

Well...I think maybe last week we could have won with a Gibbs run offense just becuase everyone would have been more comfortable with that....

I dont think there was any helping our cause this week. Its really hard to say how long it takes for them to "learn" this offense; I really dont know what goes into it, so I'm trying to reserve judgement on Saunders till week 5-7.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

Injuries are a part of the game..so we lost Portis you adapt.... but all of our talent great recievers and no QB to get the ball there.If anything Saunders is negligent in allowing an old ass Qb that cant possibly execute his offense to remain the starter...Show some testicles pull his ass out...

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

I don't believe what we're seeing is the result of Al Saunders. Something tells me that Gibbs would be having the same problems if he was calling the plays.

The O-line can't pass or run block. Something dreadful has happened to that group of guys. Brunell is performing exactly the way all the naysayers said he would play. Those two factors have a direct impact on Moss, Cooley, Lloyd and the running game.

But I seriously doubt Saunders and his playbook (which came from the same coaching tree) is the cause of all of it.

We're seeing piss-poor execution from the players plain and simple.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

The players did not call run plays on just about every 1st and 2nd down. We didn't even try to go deep.

Madden said it, "The Redskins are afraid to throw".

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

All of us here, as well as personell people around the league felt at the time the addition of Al Saunders was the greatest plus for the team this offseason. Things are definately not going good at the moment and when this happens we start looking at everything a little more critically, and begin pointing to area's we think gives us the quickest fix. Right now there is no quick fix for this team because the problems we're experiencing are multiple, and if we're looking for someone to blame it can be spread throughout the entire team. I beleive eventually we will work our way out of this funk we're in and render out doubts unfounded. We all witnessed blame tonight, but I'm hoping we'll play our way out of it despite how hard it is to be optomistic at this point in time.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

But here's the thing Beemnseven, if we see the same thing if Gibbs was still calling the plays, why bring in Saunders?? That was the point, he was supposedly a genius at perhaps covering diffeciencies.

I tried my best to reserve my judgement about the Al Saunders signing. In fact, I showed very little enthuiasm about it. I just wanted to wait and see. Well, under Gibbs last year...Moss had a record year, Portis had a record year, uhhh umm, Brunell had a record year! I thought at best the offensive was one or maybe two players away from taking us to the next level. I thought Gibbs play calling needed some tweaking but not overhauling...seems like it's a case of one step forward and two steps back.

Honestly, unless Saunders somehow turns this offense into a thirty point a game machine, someone please, please tell me why in the hell did we bring him here??

It's not like he won any Super Bowls at KC!!!

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

[quote=Longtimefan;216490]All of us here, as well as personell people around the league felt at the time the addition of Al Saunders was the greatest plus for the team this offseason. Things are definately not going good at the moment and when this happens we start looking at everything a little more critically, and begin pointing to area's we think gives us the quickest fix. Right now there is no quick fix for this team because the problems we're experiencing are multiple, and if we're looking for someone to blame it can be spread throughout the entire team. I beleive eventually we will work our way out of this funk we're in and render out doubts unfounded. We all witnessed blame tonight, but I'm hoping we'll play our way out of it despite how hard it is to be optomistic at this point in time.[/quote]


Longtime, with the highest payroll in the NFL and the highest paid coaching staff in the NFL, yes sir, you must start to point some fingers. There is no time to play out this funk. There is no time to hope Brunell comes around in Jacksonville. The troops have to rallied tomorrow morning. Changes must be [B]iminent[/B].

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

Looked like he was studying pretty hard during the game.
hmmmmmm. NO TDs by the offense...

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

[QUOTE=12thMan;216495]Longtime, with the highest payroll in the NFL and the highest paid coaching staff in the NFL, yes sir, you must start to point some fingers. There is no time to play out this funk. There is no time to hope Brunell comes around in Jacksonville. The troops have to rallied tomorrow morning. Changes must be [B]iminent[/B].[/QUOTE]

That sums it up. I've tried to stay positive until tonight. Each year, its excuse after excuse. In my dreamworld, I wake up tommorrow and find Campbell named the starter and Saunders fired and just let Gibbs call the plays.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

[QUOTE=redrock-skins;216488]The players did not call run plays on just about every 1st and 2nd down. We didn't even try to go deep.

Madden said it, "The Redskins are afraid to throw".[/QUOTE]

"...run plays on just about every 1st and 2nd down" ??

According to the stats that are already up at NFL.com, Saunders called 18 passes on 1st down, while calling only 9 runs on 1st. On second down, he called 10 passes to 7 runs.

No matter what plays Saunders called, the players didn't execute.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven;216513]"...run plays on just about every 1st and 2nd down" ??

According to the stats that are already up at NFL.com, Saunders called 18 passes on 1st down, while calling only 9 runs on 1st. On second down, he called 10 passes to 7 runs.

No matter what plays Saunders called, the players didn't execute.[/QUOTE]

Weren't most of those 1st and 2nd down passes late in the game? Not to mention that some of those "passes" were the short dump off variety.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

If we think the Texans will be pushovers, we have another thing coming. Unfortunately for us, they will be as desperate for a win as any team we've faced so far through three games.

They actually held their own against Philly until the caved in and handed them the game. I expect a very competive game from them. If we make the mistake of chalking this one up like we did against Minnesota, surely we'll
be 0-3.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

i predicted a slow start on the offensive side of the ball, so i'm not that surprised... but i didn't think it would be this slow. i know blaming the new system is cliche, but some of that can't be understated. not being able to block up front, the backs not picking up their blocks correctly, the wideouts and qb not being on the same page, cooley not sure what his role in this offense is- this all leads to basic breakdowns that shouldn't happen in pro football.

when a player learns something new, he isn't yet reacting instinctively on the field- he's still mentally going through steps before and during the play instead of automating. that's why you may see wideouts breaking a few yards short on a pass play designed to pick up 8. a guard may totally whiff on fundamental blocking because he hesitated for a split second before remembering his assignment. apply that to an entire unit and you see what happens.

having said all that, i still think everyone on the offensive side of the ball could have contributed a lot more than what was shown tonight.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

It's easy to point fingers when times are tough, it's to be expected. We all know we're struggling, we all think we know what the problems are but I'm more interested in listening to solutions as opposed to constantly pointing out the problems. We are not going to fire everybody, bench and/or replace everybody so we have to play the game with what we have. I don't see anything wrong that winning won't cure. I can go back through these post a few months and the very same people that had us in the SB are now singing a different tune now that we've lost a couple games. No more SB's now, it' fire everybody, it's truly amazing ho quickly things can change.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

Well, you're only as good as your offensive line (see teams like the Raiders and the Texans). And tonight we didn't block anyone. Brunell was on his butt the whole game (he needs to sit regardless). Plus, we couldn't get a pass rush to save our lives. What's that, 2 sacks total in 2 games against two immobile, old quarterbacks?? What happens when we play Philly and Atlanta? Bottom line, we're not getting it done up front on either side of the ball. Blache and Bugel need to get on those guys in a big way.

On a side note, how nice was it to see my man Sean Taylor laying the lumber on T.O.?? The man hits like a truck.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

[QUOTE=GMScud;216527]Well, you're only as good as your offensive line (see teams like the Raiders and the Texans). And tonight we didn't block anyone. Brunell was on his butt the whole game (he needs to sit regardless). Plus, we couldn't get a pass rush to save our lives. What's that, 2 sacks total in 2 games against two immobile, old quarterbacks?? What happens when we play Philly and Atlanta? Bottom line, we're not getting it done up front on either side of the ball. Blache and Bugel need to get on those guys in a big way.

On a side note, how nice was it to see my man Sean Taylor laying the lumber on T.O.?? The man hits like a truck.[/QUOTE]



WELCOME!!!! GMScud, I like your name. I agree with your observation about the OL. That along with others are included in the breakdowns that are preventing us from winning.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

in hindsight it looks like so far saunders was too big of a transition, maybe gibbs should have still called plays with saunders adding some input and not totally changing the scheme

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

I think of a Suanders offense, and I see the importance of two good backs (Portis and Duckett) a strong TE (Cooley) a strong offensive line and capable WRs, which over the years in KC, nobody can really name any of them. It should have been the perfect fit. I think it all starts with the threat of a running game though, and that opens up the middle of the field for Cooley then the outside of the field for the WRs. We've got to get Portis back.

I'm glad Saunders is here for the long term. We've got options when Gibbs is ready to go with him and GW. I personally wish we could have added a vet QB in case Brunell looked like he did at the end of last year (which he does) and a Ty Law type DB and kept moving, but I think the new offense without Portis and the Springs injury is what's hurting us the most.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

[quote=TAFKAS;216445]He was only necessary in the sense that Gibbs wanted a more hands on role with the entire operation (on and off the field), [/quote]

if by hands on you mean hands off. he doen't do anything with the defense, he doesn't call the plays. he hired saunders so he'd have less stress and more time ( i don't think he wants to do the 80 hour work weeks any more). I think in gibbs mind it was necessary, cause he wouldn't stick around as long without more help, but it's effect on offensive performance hasn't been so hot thus far.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

i agree with thatguy. in the glory years, coach gibbs was the offensive co ordinator, and he trusted pettibone and the boys with the defense. greg williams has proved that he can coach a good defense, so im not sure why this move was made. the latter half of last year, i thought coach gibbs figured our offense out, what plays worked with what personnel, and basically called good games(i.e. the dallas game and the giants game come to mind) it seemed that they were comfortable with him and gibbs with them. i still dont understand why saunders was brought in

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

His offense works, if you execute it.

A) Receivers were open, but Brunell doesnt risk throwing it down field. Moss had Newman beat most of the game but brunell only threw it to Ladell Betts. Who by the way is our new 2.5 yd man. If ya ever need 2.5 yards, you can hand it off to him OR throw it to him...thats being a versitile player right there...

B) Do you think it was Gibbs or Saunders who with a minute left decided to run the clock out at the half? Why in hell are we always like that, almost any other team would have tried to atleast get in field goal range and get some mementum going into the half...That really pissed me off.

Brunell needs to open up more, throw the all down field, give his receivers a chance to make a play. He wont throw the ball if someoen is within ten yards of them...

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

I keep hearing the same thing over and over, "it's going to take time for this offense to come together, blah blah blah" As we all know, there is no such thing as patience in DC. I dont think the organization expected for this to take this much time. No way in hell they went into this season expecting to struggle offensively for a few games, then turn it on. It is awful. I just dont understand it, everytime we take a step forward during a season, we take 5 back. we make the playoffs in 99, then crap out in 2000 through 2004. make the playoffs last year, now we look like crap. Last night reminded me of a Norv Turner team. Penalties, dumb plays, can't get the D off the damn field. its embarrassing! pay all the damn money we pay for the players and coaches, and we got schooled from the front office, the coaches, and the players.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

Yes, I'm all done with Brunell. Saunders wasn't necessary by any means, but Brunell is the one who has to make the plays. He's TOO GODDAMN CAREFUL. I know he doesn't want to throw picks, but how about letting your playmakers make a play every now and then? Last year, he'd heave it up there if he thought the receivers had a decent shot of coming down with it.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

[QUOTE=TheMalcolmConnection;216632]Yes, I'm all done with Brunell. Saunders wasn't necessary by any means, but Brunell is the one who has to make the plays. He's TOO GODDAMN CAREFUL. I know he doesn't want to throw picks, but how about letting your playmakers make a play every now and then? Last year, he'd heave it up there if he thought the receivers had a decent shot of coming down with it.[/QUOTE]

That is axactly right. And it's never been as obvious to see then in last nights game.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

After last night, I've drawn the following conclusions which I'm sure many others here have reached as well. Aside from the new offense, I feel pretty confident that:

1) CP is a key part of the offensive plan and players like Betts and Duckett are nowhere near being an acceptible substitute.

2) The offensive line, despite being the same bunch of guys we had last year are proving to be extremely porous on pass blocking and ineffective on run blocking. God forbid if we begin suffering injuries to the O-line, knowing that our back-ups are less skilled than our starters.

3) I'm disappointed that the offense appears to be nothing more than a 2 receiver offense, much like last year. Last year it seemed that most throws were going to Moss and Cooley. Now it seems that most throws are going to Moss and Betts (or whoever the RB is at the time). ARE is getting a few looks and Lloyd seems to get almost none. I doubt that it is because they are not getting open. I think it is more likely the result of observation #2 or Brunell not being able to go through his progressions efficiently.

4) While I'll reserve final judgment, I suspect that Brunell no longer has the physical ability to perform in this offensive scheme. He was better last year because most of the time, all he had to do was hand off to Portis and toss a couple of jokes around in the huddle. While it's still a little early, it appears he's just not getting this new offense.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

[quote=redrock-skins;216516]Weren't most of those 1st and 2nd down passes late in the game? Not to mention that some of those "passes" were the short dump off variety.[/quote]

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?

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

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.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

I was excited when the brought Saunders in and the WR pick ups and so. But if I remember correctly, when Joe had these types of players in his previous stent, he had 3 1000 yard receivers in 1 season, broke all kinds of scoring records and so on. Now, last year when we had Patten and Moss our offense was moving the ball the fine. We put points up against tough defenses and looked good. Moss goes down we struggle. Now, we bring Lloyd and El, to go with Moss and Cooley. If this organiztion wanted to win and win now, why bring in a totally new offensive scheme. Plus, your QB of future now has to learn ANOTHER offense. which, now this essentially becomes another Rookie year for him. The more I thought about this, the more I began to question it. We dont have rocket scientists trying to catch the ball for us, so you know there is going to be a good bit of time spent learning this stuff. And historically, Saunders first year with a new team, the offense has been in the 20's. Which is why our D is going to struggle. That offense likes to move quickly, strike quick, and if we dont convert 3rd downs and have a bunch of 3 and outs, our D is simply going to wear down. Especially at the end of the game when we need a stand, they just wont have an gas left. If its going to take 8 weeks for this offense to start to gel, then why waste those 8 weeks with a 36 year old guy, I would rather waste them with someone who has a future

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

during the draft i wanted a new LG more than anything. instead we got a OLB that has 2 tackles so far and a bunch of guys the 49ers didn't want...

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

Speaking of the 49ers, I bet Lloyd is wishing he would have stayed. Smith is looking great.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

No, Saunders was not necessary. The offense could be lousy with or without him.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;216697]Speaking of the 49ers, I bet Lloyd is wishing he would have stayed. Smith is looking great.[/quote]

they didn't want to keep him, he might have been cut.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

i often wonder that. or the flip side... if saunders is running the O, what's gibbs doing? not that i'd ever trade gibbs for saunders. we'll know in a few weeks whether the o starts rolling or not...

then we'll have another question. if it is indeed the case that it's just going to take time for the O to click... wouldn't it be smarter for us to use that time with a strong, young, potential franchise QB instead of slingshot brunell?

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

From my perspective, blaming Al Saunders is the easy thing to do and is incorrect.

Mark Brunell is the problem on offense. He is afraid to throw the ball. Saunders job is to get receivers open. Moss was open deep a few times last night. Brunell is either afraid to throw the ball or he physically cannot throw the ball.

Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?
 

Well I hate to say this but I have to. It is happening again. It's like fucking dejavue of 2000. We go to the playoffs the year before and then bring in alot of talent that is suppose to get us to the superbowl and we start out 0-2. Only this time instead of trading in Brad Johnson for JEFF FUCKIN GEORGE, we trade in our greatest asset in Gibbs play calling for Al Saunders. I know the offense will come around sometime, but seriously the goal for this year was home field advantage through out the playoffs and they aren't going to get that done. Thats just how I feel today after that worthless game last night. Whats our record against the Cowboys in last few years now 5-19. UGGGGGGGGGGG