Should Al Saunders return in '08?

[MTK]

I'm on the fence on this one so I thought I would toss up a poll.

Should Al Saunders return next year to run the offense?

[SmootSmack]

I was a bit on the fence, but the past month (especially the last two weeks) has me leaning toward yes. Really the key to it all is Jason Campbell's growth (and apparently taking Wade out of the lineup).

We've seen the past two games that both Gibbs' and Saunders' philosophies can coexist. We have moved the ball fairly well with Collins at QB under adverse conditions (weather and otherwise) both through the air and on the ground, and to several different players, while still maintaining a max protect philosophy (at times even Heavy Jumbo).

I don't buy the notion that Saunders is somehow smarter or more innovative than Gibbs. But I do think that he's the only other person on the team I would trust to run the offense while Gibbs focuses on overseeing the entire organization.

The one change I would make is give Saunders play-calling control end zone to end zone, taking that red zone responsibility away from Gibbs. I think it's easier that way.

[12thMan]

I just said, no.

Here's why. If Gibbs hasn't given Saunders complete control up to this point, next year aint going to mount to a hill of beans. Also, the continuity thing is old and worn out if you ask me. Yes, it's important but I don't think that's what's causing the ineffectiveness here.

We should end the Saunders experiment and move on.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I just said, no.

Here's why. If Gibbs hasn't given Saunders complete control up to this point, next year aint going to mount to a hill of beans. Also, the continuity thing is old and worn out if you ask me. Yes, it's important but I don't think that's what's causing the ineffectiveness here.

We should end the Saunders experiment and move on.

I guess you're right. The Cowboys didn't seem to have problems with a new OC AND head coach.

Still though, I think Gibbs had a little too much influence on the game plan. I want one more year of Campbell maturing and then we'll see where we are.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

I guess you're right. The Cowboys didn't seem to have problems with a new OC AND head coach.

Still though, I think Gibbs had a little too much influence on the game plan. I want one more year of Campbell maturing and then we'll see where we are.

Honestly, I think Campbell is going to break out next year regardless of who's coaching. He seems to be putting in the work to improve his game. And if can get down just a little of Saunder's playbook, anyone else's wouldn't pose too much of problem for him. At least I would think.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I just said, no.

Here's why. If Gibbs hasn't given Saunders complete control up to this point, next year aint going to mount to a hill of beans. Also, the continuity thing is old and worn out if you ask me. Yes, it's important but I don't think that's what's causing the ineffectiveness here.

We should end the Saunders experiment and move on.

According to the players, continuity is a huge deal. Having the same offensive system in place while Campbell is still young and learning is much better than making him learn a completely new system.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

According to the players, continuity is a huge deal. Having the same offensive system in place while Campbell is still young and learning is much better than making him learn a completely new system.

It's overrated I maintain. I think if you have the same guys in place it matters more than having new faces and the same system. These guys are professionals.

We've seen new systems work in the NFL year in and year out. And conversely, we've seen new systems fail. I used to buy it, not any longer.

If Santana and Jason decided to get on the same page, it doesn't matter who the offensive coordinator is, but if the head coach and the coordinator aren't on the same page, it certainly has rippling effect.

Personally, I could care less if Gibbs stays or goes. If he stays, I want him to define his role and live or die with it.

[ArtMonkDrillz]

I said yes but he has to be able to do his thing. He seems willing to change his style to fit his players and I think in year 3 we could be a force.

[BDBohnzie]

I think Al Saunders is what's best for this team offensively, in that he knows Gibbs and they have a similar coaching background and philosophy. And while their conservatism differs, I think they do mesh very well.

Injuries aside, this team is very close to being a year in, year out competitive team. The pieces are there. Once Campbell develops a bit more (into year 2 of his starts), and they fill the holes, this Redskins team should be able to dominate the NFC East.

That being said, Al Saunders may just get a head coaching job elsewhere before all is said and done...maybe not for '08, but down the road, especially if Gibbs re-ups.

[12thMan]

I agree with everyone that Saunders is the best thing and the last two weeks have shifted somewhat, but I just don't think Gibbs will start a fresh season with Al as the absolute head of the offense. And if he's not, then move on.

[Redskins8588]

I think that he needs to come back next year. I think that Gibbs needs to get a killer mantelity on offense and let Saunders loose. I was so pissed sunday night when we got the ball back after the giants scored a TD and we went three running plays and out. I immediatly thought "Here we go again, try to sit on a 12 point lead, and end up loosing in the 4th!!" IMO, Gibbs needs to go for the kill!!!!

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Redskins8588

I think that he needs to come back next year. I think that Gibbs needs to get a killer mantelity on offense and let Saunders loose. I was so pissed sunday night when we got the ball back after the giants scored a TD and we went three running plays and out. I immediatly thought "Here we go again, try to sit on a 12 point lead, and end up loosing in the 4th!!" IMO, Gibbs needs to go for the kill!!!!

Fine line between kill or be killed. Why force something that isn't there especially when we're pinned back near our own end zone. Going for the kill doesn't have to be as glamorous as an 80-yard bomb. It can also mean giving the opponent a slow death by forcing them to burn their timeouts, milking the clock down, and pinning them deep in their own territory needing to score twice.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Fine line between kill or be killed. Why force something that isn't there especially when we're pinned back near our own end zone. Going for the kill doesn't have to be as glamorous as an 80-yard bomb. It can also mean giving the opponent a slow death by forcing them to burn their timeouts, milking the clock down, and pinning them deep in their own territory needing to score twice.

I voted for Al to return with the caveat that he gets FULL control over playcalling/offense.. Here's where the playcalling argument always goes.. I agree that going for the kill doesn't have to be an 80 yard bomb, but do you honestly think that plunging into the line for 3 straight plays, especially on third and 6 is a slow death for the opponent? Killer instinct (see New England) is running your offense, your ENTIRE offense, for 60 minutes.. Playing for the win is different than playing not to lose..

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

I voted for Al to return with the caveat that he gets FULL control over playcalling/offense.. Here's where the playcalling argument always goes.. I agree that going for the kill doesn't have to be an 80 yard bomb, but do you honestly think that plunging into the line for 3 straight plays, especially on third and 6 is a slow death for the opponent? Killer instinct (see New England) is running your offense, your ENTIRE offense, for 60 minutes.. Playing for the win is different than playing not to lose..

But see that's the caveat: full control. I'm telling you now, I don't see it happening. If he returns, they'll continue to tinker around the edges to make it look like Al is in control, but I just don't see it.

Joe just might as well take it all back. Honestly, and this is just my opinion, but I think for Gibbs to be 100% effective, he needs to be all the way dialed into the game. Part of the clock mismanagement and botched timeouts is due to Gibbs having to fade in and out of the game and consult the other guy. It's just too much for him manage inside his own head.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

I voted for Al to return with the caveat that he gets FULL control over playcalling/offense.. Here's where the playcalling argument always goes.. I agree that going for the kill doesn't have to be an 80 yard bomb, but do you honestly think that plunging into the line for 3 straight plays, especially on third and 6 is a slow death for the opponent? Killer instinct (see New England) is running your offense, your ENTIRE offense, for 60 minutes.. Playing for the win is different than playing not to lose..

Well we also shouldn't assume, as too many do, that "failed" plays-particularly failed running plays are because of Gibbs. Every great play is followed by "What a great call by Saunders" and retarded threads like "This is Al Saunders' offense" But botched plays are "Old Man Gibbs needs to go" Not saying everyone does this, but a lot of people do.