Should Al Saunders return in '08?

[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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

Playing for the win is different than playing not to lose..

Explain how.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Explain how.

Very simple..

Playing to win is continuing to be aggressive for 60 minutes (see New England), continuing to run your ENTIRE offense for 60 minutes, taking chances when they are there, making things happen on both sides of the ball by dictating to your opponent..

Continuing to try to score EVERY TIME you have the ball, regardless of the score, is playing to win..

Playing not to lose is getting a lead and changing what you've been doing to try to get the clock to run out before your opponent can catch up, avoiding throwing the ball downfield or running all of the plays in your playbook once you have a lead because you are afraid of turning the ball over, allowing your opponent to move the ball by playing vanilla defense because the clock will keep running and trying to stiffen up in the red zone..

Basically running out to a lead and sitting on it is playing not to lose..

[Redskins8588]

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 understand what you are saying but look at buffalo, we could have won that game but we sat on the lead. I understand what you are saying, I just get tired of loosing games because we don't put teams away when we have the chance...

[Beemnseven]

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.

See, here's the problem. "Going for the Kill" doesn't have mean 'throwing a 80 yard bomb' or trying to 'force something that isn't there.'

There are high percentage passing plays available -- a 4 to 6 yard pattern to a tight end in the flat, a wideout screen...

Your last sentence is something they've tried many times this season, and it's come back to bite them. Fortunately, the Giants offense was inept Sunday night and that strategy happened to work for the first time in weeks.

Needless to say, I was jacked up for calling three straight running plays too.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

See, here's the problem. "Going for the Kill" doesn't have mean 'throwing a 80 yard bomb' or trying to 'force something that isn't there.'

There are high percentage passing plays available -- a 4 to 6 yard pattern to a tight end in the flat, a wideout screen...

Your last sentence is something they've tried many times this season, and it's come back to bite them. Fortunately, the Giants offense was inept Sunday night and that strategy happened to work for the first time in weeks.

Needless to say, I was jacked up for calling three straight running plays too.

Personally I would have liked another draw on a delay on that last sequence, or even a draw out of a shotgun. And I agree that short, intermediate passes could work. Especially considering the great job the offensive line did the other night.

However, I don't think the majority of people here who say go for the kill mean anything less than launching it deep for one of our players to run under and gallop into the end zone.

[Rock31]

I'll maintain we need one or two more playmakers for Saunders' schemes to work well. With one more offseason will come greater maturity and knowledge of the offense for Campbell, and much-needed healing for our line and receivers. It may be that the lack of execution this season has been a function of our players grasping the system, but lacking the explosiveness to execute on most plays. Portis will get the grunt yards, Cooley will make a reception to get the O started, and Moss will keep the chains moving every other drive. But who will turn a screen into a 70-yard touchdown? A shovel pass into a 15-yard gain? One of those lob shots deep down the field for an unbelievable, over-the-shoulders catch to set up a red-zone possession? Anyone?

I think if we can find a receiver and/or back with those capabilities, then yes, Saunders will stay to coordinate the O next season. If not, the Skins may "smart up" and play within the limits of their offense, the way Gibbs would run it. Of course, I am in the camp that wants Wash to make the acquisitions necessary to make Saunders' system work.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Rock31

But who will turn a screen into a 70-yard touchdown? A shovel pass into a 15-yard gain? One of those lob shots deep down the field for an unbelievable, over-the-shoulders catch to set up a red-zone possession? Anyone?

Are you being serious? Have you never seen Moss, Portis, Betts, Randle El, Cooley, Caldwell play?

[Rock31]

Have said players ever done any of that consistently? Are any of them besides Cooley and maybe Portis in the top 5 at their respective positions in scoring TDs or all-purpose yards? Do any of them really attract double coverage or serve as the singular focus for opposing defenses to game-plan around?

Don't be in such disbelief; I am not stating the Skins' offensive threats aren't significant. I feel they lack the qualities a player like Priest Holmes, Marshall Faulk, Torry Holt, Larry Johnson and Tony Gonzalez had in their prime when Saunders was working with their offenses. You are more than welcome to dispute my point, but I feel many would agree with me.