Why all the complaining?

[GiantsSuck703]

I really dont get the complaining, the last time we beat Arizona we needed a kickoff return for a TD to win the game and we made it to the second round of the playoffs that year, and Arizona was really bad that year. Were fine, we will get healthy and I think our defense will keep us in the game next week.

[Redskins247]

Originally Posted by skinsfan242

You know no matter what happened we ended up WINNING the Game. There are some things that can be questioned but you also have to remember this is the NFL and the other teams step up when their backs are against the wall. No matter what happened we won the game.

Can everyone on here just talk about the Fact that we are 4-2 when everyone including alot of you thought we would have a 5-11 or 6-10 season?

Can you talk about how the Defense is dominant and if not for two stupid personal fouls the game would have never been close?

Sure all you want to do is complain but I guarntee you the Packers fans weren't complaining they beat us when we gave the game away.

Let's just go with the facts, we have a great defense an injured offensive line and we play hard. We are 4-2 not 3-3.

Have a good week and just hope we can pull off a Major Upset next week.

You HAVE to keep in mind how DIE-HARD fans all of us are here, and we see so much potential and talent on this team and hate to see it not being utilized to the fullest!! (aka Pats & Colts...COMPLETELY utilizing all it's talent!)

BUT...when you look at ALL the injuries we've had this early...4-2 is pretty damn good!!!

[GTripp0012]

The ONLY problem I have with the play calling (which on the whole tends to be very good) is that Saunders seems to always have the worst possible play call ready for 3rd and short. It's very easy to predict that we are going to three step drop, and try to drill a pass at a guy who is standing 5 yards from the QB. You don't really need to defend it, because you can't catch a pass that JC throws if you are only standing 5 yards from him.

Do we ever run in 3rd and short? No. Do we ever take advantage of the short yardage to PA pass? No. We just throw it at someones feet and punt.

The worst part is, that I can completely predict that Saunders is going to do it every time we are in third and short. It's undoubtably the worst play call that can be made in that situation, and we do it 100% of third and short situations, no exceptions.

[skinsguy]

Ok. So, I'm hearing people complain about Al Saunders. Fine. You guys were the ones who said we needed an offensive coordinator other than Joe Gibbs. What difference has it made? At least we made the playoffs under Gibbs' offense. And, that was an offense with Mark Brunell at quarterback, and with one goto receiver in Santana Moss.

So, knowing those facts, if we have all the offensive weapons now that we didn't have in '05, why wouldn't Joe Gibbs' offense work now? Don't get me wrong, until our record falls under .500 and we miss the playoffs again, I will continue to support this team and the coaches. But, I do believe the FO has done just about everything that the fans have asked them to do, and the fans still don't like it.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Ok. So, I'm hearing people complain about Al Saunders. Fine. You guys were the ones who said we needed an offensive coordinator other than Joe Gibbs. What difference has it made? At least we made the playoffs under Gibbs' offense. And, that was an offense with Mark Brunell at quarterback, and with one goto receiver in Santana Moss.

So, knowing those facts, if we have all the offensive weapons now that we didn't have in '05, why wouldn't Joe Gibbs' offense work now? Don't get me wrong, until our record falls under .500 and we miss the playoffs again, I will continue to support this team and the coaches. But, I do believe the FO has done just about everything that the fans have asked them to do, and the fans still don't like it.

I never said that. I applauded the move, and I thought it was a good sign of Gibbs' willingness to change. But no, I was not one to say that Gibbs was over it and should hand the playcalling duties to someone else.

I've been a defender of the coaches from the beginning. Not once, even through the nightmare of the 2006 season did I call for any of the coaches to get canned. Even if we struggle with a mundane offense and finish with a record of around 8-8, I'd still say that Saunders deserves at least one more year to fully implement his offensive plan along with the further development of Campbell.

But at the same time, I don't think it would be unfair to say that this offense isn't anywhere near what Al Saunders really wants.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

I never said that. I applauded the move, and I thought it was a good sign of Gibbs' willingness to change. But no, I was not one to say that Gibbs was over it and should hand the playcalling duties to someone else.

My statement was a general statement toward a high majority of Redskins fans who kept crying in '05 for a new OC. But, I would assume if one applauded the move, then one supported it. I, personally, felt it was the wrong move. We made the playoffs under Joe Gibbs' offense with less weapons and a quarterback who most complained couldn't pass deep. We obviously have more offensive weapons now, so it seems to me it would've made more sense to have gotten the guys we had gotten (minus Brandon Lloyd,) and kept the same offense that took us deep into the playoffs the year before.

But, I did (and still do) go along with it, because Gibbs did state that Saunders was brought in to enhance the existing offense, but not to completely go away from it. So again, I ask, if we haven't went away from the offense we had purely with Gibbs, we should've just kept Gibbs offense in and focused on that.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

My statement was a general statement toward a high majority of Redskins fans who kept crying in '05 for a new OC. But, I would assume if one applauded the move, then one supported it. I, personally, felt it was the wrong move. We made the playoffs under Joe Gibbs' offense with less weapons and a quarterback who most complained couldn't pass deep. We obviously have more offensive weapons now, so it seems to me it would've made more sense to have gotten the guys we had gotten (minus Brandon Lloyd,) and kept the same offense that took us deep into the playoffs the year before.

But, I did (and still do) go along with it, because Gibbs did state that Saunders was brought in to enhance the existing offense, but not to completely go away from it. So again, I ask, if we haven't went away from the offense we had purely with Gibbs, we should've just kept Gibbs offense in and focused on that.

Yes, one can support the decision that was made, even if one wasn't originally calling for it.

[SouperMeister]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Ok. So, I'm hearing people complain about Al Saunders. Fine. You guys were the ones who said we needed an offensive coordinator other than Joe Gibbs. What difference has it made? At least we made the playoffs under Gibbs' offense. And, that was an offense with Mark Brunell at quarterback, and with one goto receiver in Santana Moss.

So, knowing those facts, if we have all the offensive weapons now that we didn't have in '05, why wouldn't Joe Gibbs' offense work now? Don't get me wrong, until our record falls under .500 and we miss the playoffs again, I will continue to support this team and the coaches. But, I do believe the FO has done just about everything that the fans have asked them to do, and the fans still don't like it.

What I saw today was a lot more Joe Gibbs conservatism in the game plan than the Al Saunders offenses that I remember from STL and KC. I'm fine with conservatism if it's working. It was a beautiful thing when Portis bludgeoned teams down the stretch of '05, but we are not seeing the kind of production with that approach for THIS team. If conservatism is not working, I'd like to see more of a Saunders-styled game plan, that often used the passing game to set up subsequent running success in his previous stops. This would have been a 14 point win with any second half production from the offense.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by SouperMeister

What I saw today was a lot more Joe Gibbs conservatism in the game plan than the Al Saunders offenses that I remember from STL and KC. I'm fine with conservatism if it's working. It was a beautiful thing when Portis bludgeoned teams down the stretch of '05, but we are not seeing the kind of production with that approach for THIS team. If conservatism is not working, I'd like to see more of a Saunders-styled game plan, that often used the passing game to set up subsequent running success in his previous stops. This would have been a 14 point win with any second half production from the offense.

And again, you have to ask, why were we playing conservative. Our freakin' offensive line. Why did Joe Gibbs' offense work in '05? Because we had our offensive line intact. It's that simple.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

And again, you have to ask, why were we playing conservative. Our freakin' offensive line. Why did Joe Gibbs' offense work in '05? Because we had our offensive line intact. It's that simple.

During that 5-game stretch, we also saw intensity and determination that hasn't been matched before or since.

There's been a lot of half-assing it if you ask me.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

During that 5-game stretch, we also saw intensity and determination that hasn't been matched before or since.

There's been a lot of half-assing it if you ask me.

And those players need to do a better job.

[SouperMeister]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

And again, you have to ask, why were we playing conservative. Our freakin' offensive line. Why did Joe Gibbs' offense work in '05? Because we had our offensive line intact. It's that simple.

And I argue that it's foolish to try to go smashmouth with the O-line in shambles. I've said it before, and it bears repeating, you can spread the field with 3 and 4 WR sets to create more running lanes. Today was an obvious lack of willingness to adjust on offense, and it probably should have cost us the game.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by SouperMeister

And I argue that it's foolish to try to go smashmouth with the O-line in shambles. I've said it before, and it bears repeating, you can spread the field with 3 and 4 WR sets to create more running lanes. Today was an obvious lack of willingness to adjust on offense, and it probably should have cost us the game.

Doesn't matter if you spread the offense or not, if your offensive line is in shambles, none of it is going to work. If opening running lanes was the only problem with our OL, then we could work around that, but pass protection is also suspect now because of our OL being injured.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by SouperMeister

And I argue that it's foolish to try to go smashmouth with the O-line in shambles. I've said it before, and it bears repeating, you can spread the field with 3 and 4 WR sets to create more running lanes. Today was an obvious lack of willingness to adjust on offense, and it probably should have cost us the game.

This requires a complete adjustment of offensive philosophy. That doesn't happen overnight. And what happens when Wade and Kendall aren't gimpy and Rabach is fine? Our line is tremendously better and we're supposed to simply switch back to our original plan? It doesn't work like that. e're calling the stuff we can run right now.

[skinsfan_nn]

Bottom line, patch work O-LINE......yea, bad day at the office.

The D stepped it UP! We WON THE DAMN game! THE END.......4-2, beats the hell outta 3-3 PERIOD! We have given both losses away on a golden platter. We got a little gift here from no rackers! It should have NEVER COME down to that anyway!

TAKE IT AND BE HAPPY!