Al Saunders
 

When we made this move to sign him to be the offensive playcalling I thought we were going to win the super bowl. It was wishful thinking. I mean his offense and Williams' defense a match made in heaven. I thought about it and came to the realization that Lord Gibbs is the coach and is a offensive minded coach who would step in and not let Saunders be Saunders. I mean we go out and get Lloyd, Randel El, anc Collins to run the system that was a KC for years and we go back to Redskins football. I really am furious at How Gibbs would sit back and let Saunders do what we are paying him for. His system does work we have witness some of the greatest offense in football for several years than all of sudden it does not work here. Gibbs need to do the same thing with Saunders as he did for Williams and let him picked the personnel and call his plays because we know it works. Sorry folks but as long as Gibbs the coach we will not win a super bowl in this era. This is a passing league not a run, run and pass league. I really appreciate all Gibbs has done for this organization but it is time for a knew era. I will wait and see what happens but Gibbs offense will not get a super bowl this era since know the game has got a lot faster and bigger and stronger than the in the early 90s. We need someone who has been coaching offense that last several years and knows how the league is now and has kept up with the speed of the game. I just would like to know what you guys think. I mean look at the numbers that Saunders has sustained in Kansas City as well as in St. Louis(with the help of Vermil and Martz). Even look at his offensive numbers when he was the head caoch at San Diego some time years ago he even was scoring then.

Re: Al Saunders
 

What do people have against paragraphs? ;)

Re: Al Saunders
 

I didn't understand that post. I don't understand this thread. Somebody help

Re: Al Saunders
 

At least you read it, or tried to. No paragraphs to me = no read.

Re: Al Saunders
 

Are you supporting Al Saunders or bashing him? I don't understand.

Re: Al Saunders
 

If you cross your eyes a little bit you can see an image of the Redskin's logo. It's like one of those magic eye things.

Re: Al Saunders
 

[QUOTE=ArtMonkDrillz;268144]If you cross your eyes a little bit you can see an image of the Redskin's logo. It's like one of those magic eye things.[/QUOTE]

LOL

Re: Al Saunders
 

It took me a lot of time, but I think I understand what he's saying. He said we went and got Al Saunders, but then Gibbs didn't let Al do what Al does. He then basically said Gibbs sucks as a coach. And then he said he likes sex with red-ass baboons.

OK I made that last part up. But what he actually said was equally ridiculous.

Did we or did we not improve on offense once Gibbs asserted himself and demanded a return to power running? If anything, the offense is the unit headed into 2007 with the momentum. The Gibbs/Saunders relationship is not the biggest concern for us. The biggest problem is Gregg Williams' D. Has his ego and arrogance caused him to lose the locker room? Has he underestimated his need for talent? Those are our big offseason problems.

Re: Al Saunders
 

I can't see the Redskins Logo - all I see is the profile of an indian.

And there is no Easter Bunny.

Re: Al Saunders
 

I strongly disagree with your last post. Our offense was playing horrible until Gibbs stepped in and they started running the ball more, how could you not notice that? Plus, in Al's last two offenses he's had studs at QB, he was running his offense with Brunell, that's probably part of the reason why it didn't work as well, and then he moved to a first year guy in Campbell. And, I don't think you can throw a young guy like JC into such a complex offense, I believe that it was extremely important that they ran the ball more than Saunders normally would to take the pressure off the shoulders of Campbell. We don't need to get his confidence destroyed in a season that was already lost anyway.

I see a monkey beating Tony Romo with a bannana, weird.

Re: Al Saunders
 

[quote=Sean"Big Hurt"Taylor;268131]When we made this move to sign him to be the offensive playcalling I thought we were going to win the super bowl. It was wishful thinking. I mean his offense and Williams' defense a match made in heaven. I thought about it and came to the realization that Lord Gibbs is the coach and is a offensive minded coach who would step in and not let Saunders be Saunders. I mean we go out and get Lloyd, Randel El, anc Collins to run the system that was a KC for years and we go back to Redskins football. I really am furious at How Gibbs would sit back and let Saunders do what we are paying him for. His system does work we have witness some of the greatest offense in football for several years than all of sudden it does not work here. Gibbs need to do the same thing with Saunders as he did for Williams and let him picked the personnel and call his plays because we know it works. Sorry folks but as long as Gibbs the coach we will not win a super bowl in this era. This is a passing league not a run, run and pass league. I really appreciate all Gibbs has done for this organization but it is time for a knew era. I will wait and see what happens but Gibbs offense will not get a super bowl this era since know the game has got a lot faster and bigger and stronger than the in the early 90s. We need someone who has been coaching offense that last several years and knows how the league is now and has kept up with the speed of the game. I just would like to know what you guys think. I mean look at the numbers that Saunders has sustained in Kansas City as well as in St. Louis(with the help of Vermil and Martz). Even look at his offensive numbers when he was the head caoch at San Diego some time years ago he even was scoring then.[/quote]

Here is the main problem w/ Gibbs and Saunders. Saunders likes to get 5 guys out in the pass patterns. Gibbs likes to send out 3 and keep everyone else in to pass protect. Gibbs is going to have to give in if this offense is ever going to reach it's full potential. In the NFL you have to pass to score and run to win. And right now our passing game isn't good enough to win on a consistent basis. Can anyone tell me when was the last time we threw for 300 yards?

Re: Al Saunders
 

Grammer is your friend!

Re: Al Saunders
 

And spelling is yours. ;)

Re: Al Saunders
 

LOL!

The Inglish langwage iz evryones frend.

Re: Al Saunders
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;268202]And spelling is yours. ;)[/quote]
LMFAO!!!

Re: Al Saunders
 

At least we're not all still bitter about the season.

Re: Al Saunders
 

I'm not bashing Saunders. Im totally for him as the offensive coordinator. We need to lose some of 40 coaches let OC and DC do their jobs at the offense and defense. The offense was not explosive it was that we playing teams who could not stop the run. We ran to set up the playaction pass for Campbell to get the ball downfield. To me it a pathetic offense. I do agree with you Gabe1984. We ran a lot to help a first year starter in this complex offense. I just think that we have to take our bumps and bruises and should have let him learn on the fly instead of protecting him. Just as Clinton Portis says every qb is going to throw interceptions. Eventually this offense is going to be very explosive only when Joe Gibbs leaves the playcalling to Al Saunders.
As far as the personnel issue I have I just want Gibbs to leave the offense to Saunders and let him pick the players he would like to run the offense. I guarantee that Saunders did not want Brunell to be the quarterback of this offense. I believe that he wanted Collins to start and for Campbell to learn but it totally did not play out like that. As far as why there was no paragraphs I was just frustrated and did not want to take time and do that. I just wanted to vent my anger as to how things are within the Redskins organization.

Re: Al Saunders
 

With regard to the size of the coaching staff being an issue, that argument holds some water. Sonny and Sam mentioned that issue in during the game against the Eagles when the Redskins got called for too many men in the huddle and it helped kill their drive. It seems that having the 40 headed monster for a coaching staff might lead to some confusion amongst the players.

Re: Al Saunders
 

[quote=skinsfan69;268189]Here is the main problem w/ Gibbs and Saunders. Saunders likes to get 5 guys out in the pass patterns. Gibbs likes to send out 3 and keep everyone else in to pass protect. Gibbs is going to have to give in if this offense is ever going to reach it's full potential. In the NFL you have to pass to score and run to win. And right now our passing game isn't good enough to win on a consistent basis. Can anyone tell me when was the last time we threw for 300 yards?[/quote]

But does it make any sense to send 5 guys out in pass routes when you have a young QB just learning how to make reads? I mean isn't that exactly what Spurrier did to Ramsey?

When a QB is older and wiser, and has been in the offense for a while, like Trent Green, then you can send 5 guys out and the QB can probably make the reads and decisions fast enough to beat the pass rush. But a young QB like Campbell is slower to read and react, and needs more time than that. He'll end up holding onto the ball too long and taking mad sacks, or he'll end up making bad decisions and getting picked.

I strongly favor Gibbs' approach for the sake of a young QB's development. Max protect is your friend. Win the game on the ground, and take your shots through the air without sacrificing protection.

Re: Al Saunders
 

[quote=Sean"Big Hurt"Taylor;268210]I'm not bashing Saunders. Im totally for him as the offensive coordinator. We need to lose some of 40 coaches let OC and DC do their jobs at the offense and defense. The offense was not explosive it was that we playing teams who could not stop the run. We ran to set up the playaction pass for Campbell to get the ball downfield. To me it a pathetic offense. I do agree with you Gabe1984. We ran a lot to help a first year starter in this complex offense. I just think that we have to take our bumps and bruises and should have let him learn on the fly instead of protecting him. Just as Clinton Portis says every qb is going to throw interceptions. Eventually this offense is going to be very explosive only when Joe Gibbs leaves the playcalling to Al Saunders.
As far as the personnel issue I have I just want Gibbs to leave the offense to Saunders and let him pick the players he would like to run the offense. I guarantee that Saunders did not want Brunell to be the quarterback of this offense. I believe that he wanted Collins to start and for Campbell to learn but it totally did not play out like that. As far as why there was no paragraphs I was just frustrated and did not want to take time and do that. I just wanted to vent my anger as to how things are within the Redskins organization.[/quote]

Well it would be one thing if Al Saunders could just dump our current offensive line and just go sign all of his guys from KC. But he can't because of the salary cap. It's just not realistic. You can't just bring in a 5-wide, air it out, run on the edges, throw screen passes offensive philosophy to a team that is built for power running.

Gibbs admitted he underestimated the difference in offensive philosophies between him and Saunders. With hindsight being 20/20, Gibbs has all but admitted that bringing in Saunders was a mistake.

Re: Al Saunders
 

[QUOTE=Sean"Big Hurt"Taylor;268210]I'm not bashing Saunders. Im totally for him as the offensive coordinator. We need to lose some of 40 coaches let OC and DC do their jobs at the offense and defense. The offense was not explosive it was that we playing teams who could not stop the run. We ran to set up the playaction pass for Campbell to get the ball downfield. To me it a pathetic offense. I do agree with you Gabe1984. We ran a lot to help a first year starter in this complex offense. I just think that we have to take our bumps and bruises and should have let him learn on the fly instead of protecting him. Just as Clinton Portis says every qb is going to throw interceptions. Eventually this offense is going to be very explosive only when Joe Gibbs leaves the playcalling to Al Saunders.
As far as the personnel issue I have I just want Gibbs to leave the offense to Saunders and let him pick the players he would like to run the offense. I guarantee that Saunders did not want Brunell to be the quarterback of this offense. I believe that he wanted Collins to start and for Campbell to learn but it totally did not play out like that. As far as why there was no paragraphs I was just frustrated and did not want to take time and do that. I just wanted to vent my anger as to how things are within the Redskins organization.[/QUOTE]

Too frustrated to take the time to hit to "Enter" a couple of times to make paragraphs, but not too frustrated to type up a rambling rant, eh? ;)

And, um, are we now saying why wasn't Todd Collins our starting QB?

Re: Al Saunders
 

When an actor is playing a role and he doesn't believe in what he's doing, doesn't know how to play the role with any confidence, then the audience doesn't believe in him, and everything comes off as false.

The Redskins were asked on offense to play a new role, and they didn't believe in what they were doing, didn't play the role with any confidence, and the fans didn't believe in them, and everything came off as false in general.

The mistake the Redskins made was not including the players in the decision making process as to what kind of offense to run. Maybe that is not normally done, but I think it was called for here. It is one thing to hire Saunders without consulting the players, but it is another to impose an offense on them without the players having any real say in the matter.

Joe Gibbs didn't realize that the offense of Saunders was going to be so different. On paper, maybe it didn't look as different, but in terms of the mindset of the players playing it, it is very different.

Finally Coach Gibbs realized that we had to go back to Redskins football. That means football that the Redskins know how to play - roles they are confident in playing out, that ring true when they do. Gibbs has his personality and that is what sets the tone with the team. Saunders came in and starting playing a different tone, and the two didn't mix.

So now the task is for Saunders to recognize that he has to adapt his system to the team, and not simply try to impose his system and let them sink or swim.

I am hopeful that things will work out. I am optimistic about next season.

Re: Al Saunders
 

[quote=SouperMeister;268206]LMFAO!!![/quote]

Off season is officially here!

Re: Al Saunders
 

[quote=Oakland Red;268255]When an actor is playing a role and he doesn't believe in what he's doing, doesn't know how to play the role with any confidence, then the audience doesn't believe in him, and everything comes off as false.

The Redskins were asked on offense to play a new role, and they didn't believe in what they were doing, didn't play the role with any confidence, and the fans didn't believe in them, and everything came off as false in general.

The mistake the Redskins made was not including the players in the decision making process as to what kind of offense to run. Maybe that is not normally done, but I think it was called for here. It is one thing to hire Saunders without consulting the players, but it is another to impose an offense on them without the players having any real say in the matter.

Joe Gibbs didn't realize that the offense of Saunders was going to be so different. On paper, maybe it didn't look as different, but in terms of the mindset of the players playing it, it is very different.

Finally Coach Gibbs realized that we had to go back to Redskins football. That means football that the Redskins know how to play - roles they are confident in playing out, that ring true when they do. Gibbs has his personality and that is what sets the tone with the team. Saunders came in and starting playing a different tone, and the two didn't mix.

So now the task is for Saunders to recognize that he has to adapt his system to the team, and not simply try to impose his system and let them sink or swim.

I am hopeful that things will work out. I am optimistic about next season.[/quote]

Real nice post.

Re: Al Saunders
 

[quote=Schneed10;268226]But does it make any sense to send 5 guys out in pass routes when you have a young QB just learning how to make reads? I mean isn't that exactly what Spurrier did to Ramsey?

When a QB is older and wiser, and has been in the offense for a while, like Trent Green, then you can send 5 guys out and the QB can probably make the reads and decisions fast enough to beat the pass rush. But a young QB like Campbell is slower to read and react, and needs more time than that. He'll end up holding onto the ball too long and taking mad sacks, or he'll end up making bad decisions and getting picked.

[I][B] I strongly favor Gibbs' approach for the sake of a young QB's development. Max protect is your friend. Win the game on the ground, and take your shots through the air without sacrificing protection.[/B][/I][/quote]

That's how I feel it should be all next year as well. As I've mentioned before, run, run, run and let Saunders throw in some of his innovativeness along the way.

We see now the benefits of having a strong-armed QB and the running game is only going to benefit next year. With those kind of options, why even try end-arounds, five-wide sets when you can get by just running the ball and throwing it when you have to. Sometimes, it's just overkill.

I firmly believe that if the defense can at least get back into average mode, we'll be a playoff team again. We need a top ten defense for a Super Bowl run.

Re: Al Saunders
 

When Campbell, Moss, Randle El, and (maybe) Lloyd have time to get on the same page, this offense should be able to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants.

Re: Al Saunders
 

[quote=Schneed10;268226]But does it make any sense to send 5 guys out in pass routes when you have a young QB just learning how to make reads? I mean isn't that exactly what Spurrier did to Ramsey?

When a QB is older and wiser, and has been in the offense for a while, like Trent Green, then you can send 5 guys out and the QB can probably make the reads and decisions fast enough to beat the pass rush. But a young QB like Campbell is slower to read and react, and needs more time than that. He'll end up holding onto the ball too long and taking mad sacks, or he'll end up making bad decisions and getting picked.

I strongly favor Gibbs' approach for the sake of a young QB's development. Max protect is your friend. Win the game on the ground, and take your shots through the air without sacrificing protection.[/quote]

Gibbs acts like JC is a frickin little baby. He needs to stop coddleling him. Sending 3 guys out on 3rd down is outdated. JC STARTED AT AURBURN FOR 4 YEARS. He can handle it. In certain situations you can send out 5 guys. Like on 1st down? Not all the time but some of the time you have to do it. This is why we don't score enough TD's becasue our offense is too conservative. Or how about running a hurry up offense next year some of the time? I watched Pennington do it and he can't even throw the ball. We need to diversify the offense.

Re: Al Saunders
 

[quote=Beemnseven;268328]When Campbell, Moss, Randle El, and (maybe) Lloyd have time to get on the same page, this offense should be able to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants.[/quote]Not to be a hater, but couldn't that be said about most any team? "When <QB>, <Top WR>, <other WRs>, get on the same page (translation: start playing better), they will be unstoppable!"

Our passing game fell off the map after the Dallas win, and although a lot of that was Jason Campbell's inexpierience, a lot of that was protection issues caused in part by a lack of Portis. Brunell's stats likely would have declined had we kept him in there also, although he still likely would have completed more passes per game than Campbell.

I have full faith in Campbell 07.

Re: Al Saunders
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;268388]Not to be a hater, but couldn't that be said about most any team? "When <QB>, <Top WR>, <other WRs>, get on the same page (translation: start playing better), they will be unstoppable!"

Our passing game fell off the map after the Dallas win, and although a lot of that was Jason Campbell's inexpierience, a lot of that was protection issues caused in part by a lack of Portis. Brunell's stats likely would have declined had we kept him in there also, although he still likely would have completed more passes per game than Campbell.

I have full faith in Campbell 07.[/QUOTE]

Well, take your pick with Brunell's high percentage short passing, versus Campbell's riskier down field passing. Either way, the offense was doomed in '06. The naysayers were right about Brunell, the new offense was too much for a one-year transition, and Campbell was going to make the rookie mistakes sooner or later.

And yes, I guess all fans say that about receivers and QBs. But in our case, Campbell [I]does[/I] need time to develop chemistry with Moss, ARE, and Lloyd only because he ran with the practice squad guys for most of the year while Brunell ran with the starters.

Re: Al Saunders
 

[QUOTE=TheMalcolmConnection;268202]And spelling is yours. ;)[/QUOTE]

Auwsum!

Re: Al Saunders
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS;268249]And, um, are we now saying why wasn't Todd Collins our starting QB?[/QUOTE]

Finally!

I have been saying this for sooo long! I knew TAFKAS would agree with me that Collins should be our starter. I think Ramsey got screwed too.

Re: Al Saunders
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG;268414]Finally!

I have been saying this for sooo long! I knew TAFKAS would agree with me that Collins should be our starter. I think Ramsey got screwed too.[/QUOTE]

So did Lavar and Sultan McCollugh..

Re: Al Saunders
 

[QUOTE=Paintrain;268418]So did Lavar and Sultan McCollugh..[/QUOTE]

Don't forget Justin Skaggs. They'd have named the Pro Bowl after him if he'd only gotten a fair shot.

:rolleyes:

Re: Al Saunders
 

And Jimmy Farris

Re: Al Saunders
 

[QUOTE=Sean"Big Hurt"Taylor;268131]This is a passing league not a run, run and pass league. [/QUOTE]

Not necessarily the case. The team that usually wins the Super Bowl has a well-balanced offense with a strong running game. So, I can't really agree that it is a passing league at all. Now, arena football, now that is what I consider a passing league. The NFL is not.

Re: Al Saunders
 

I hear a voice in the wilderness...

"Be patient Redskins nation, Al Saunders has never made a big impact on any offense in his first season."

:)

Re: Al Saunders
 

[quote=Sean"Big Hurt"Taylor;268131]This is a passing league not a run, run and pass league.[/quote]

I love statements like this, especially when the team with the best record in the league plays Martyball and boasts the league MVP, a running back, Ladainian Tomlinson.

Re: Al Saunders
 

[quote=skinsfan69;268360]Gibbs acts like JC is a frickin little baby. He needs to stop coddleling him. Sending 3 guys out on 3rd down is outdated. JC STARTED AT AURBURN FOR 4 YEARS. He can handle it. In certain situations you can send out 5 guys. Like on 1st down? Not all the time but some of the time you have to do it. This is why we don't score enough TD's becasue our offense is too conservative. Or how about running a hurry up offense next year some of the time? I watched Pennington do it and he can't even throw the ball. We need to diversify the offense.[/quote]

What makes you think JC can handle reading a defense that quickly? Did he learn that at Auburn? Did Alabama or Florida use a Jim Johnson blitz disguise? Did Tennessee or Vanderbilt use a 3-4 like Dallas?

Get the F out of here with the notion that Campbell's four years at Auburn have any bearing on his readiness here at this level. Are you serious with that? College ball?

It takes QBs a while to learn. Here's a little food for thought: over our first 10 games, with Saunders free to run his offense how he saw fit, we scored 18 points per game. With Gibbs reasserting himself over the last six games, calling a more conservative gameplan with more power running and max protection, we scored 21 points per game. It's really hard to argue we're better off with Saunders' method, especially with our offensive personnel.

Re: Al Saunders
 

[quote=Schneed10;268476]Get the F out of here with the notion that Campbell's four years at Auburn have any bearing on his readiness here at this level. Are you serious with that? College ball?[/quote]History does show that more starts in college are condusive to NFL success. I think theres something to that. Not sure it matters though whether he started 4 years at Auburn or 4 years at Middle Tennessee State, expierience is expierience. (Of course, one would expect that the "MTSU Campbell" would have better numbers than the Auburn Campbell)

But I agree that a statement that starting 4 years at the college level makes you prepared to handle blitz packages at the NFL level right away is pretty retarded. If that was the case, there wouldn't be a learning curve.

Re: Al Saunders
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;268202]And spelling is yours. ;)[/quote]
Dang me!