Should We Be As Happy With This Win

[BDBohnzie]

What's wrong with .500? Aside from '05, Marty was here last time this team was .500. It's an improvement...

However, I don't think it's becoming more conservative that he believes, it's that a conservative offense, where you grind the clock by forcing it down the throat of the defense, is better suited for a good defense. Saunders has no problems opening things up and letting the good times roll, but he's saying why take the chances now when the MO is working.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by BDBohnzie

What's wrong with .500? Aside from '05, Marty was here last time this team was .500. It's an improvement...

However, I don't think it's becoming more conservative that he believes, it's that a conservative offense, where you grind the clock by forcing it down the throat of the defense, is better suited for a good defense. Saunders has no problems opening things up and letting the good times roll, but he's saying why take the chances now when the MO is working.

What article are you referring to?

[BDBohnzie]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

What article are you referring to?

It was in Sunday's Washington Post...let me see if I can find it...

Here it is...

...It is widely believed around the NFL that Redskins Coach Joe Gibbs took the aggressiveness out of Saunders's playbook, replacing it with a more conservative attack.

And yet, if Saunders has severe restrictions placed upon his play-calling he won't admit it, optimistically delivering weekly game plans that don't resemble the wide-open directives of his previous stops in Kansas City and St. Louis. He says they represent the Redskins' best chance to win, especially now that the team's defense has become a strength. And if he resents Gibbs for insisting upon a more deliberate approach, he hides it well.

That's my interpretation of it at least...he's certainly more conservative than he was in KC and St. Louis.