Al Saunders: was he necessary?

[MTK]

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?

[SmootSmack]

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

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

He was only necessary in the sense that Gibbs wanted a more hands on role with the entire operation (on and off the field),

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.

[MTK]

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.

[mooby]

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.

[SmootSmack]

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.

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

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.

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.

[Gmanc711]

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.

[railcon56]

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...

[Beemnseven]

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.

[redrock-skins]

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".

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by redrock-skins

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".

"...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.

[redrock-skins]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

"...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.

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.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by redrock-skins

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.

Lets put this to rest. Here is the breakdown by quarter:

      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

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?

[Twilbert07]

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