Should Al Saunders return in '08?

[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..