Should Al Saunders return in '08?

[jsarno]

I do not like this question at all. It's glaringly obvious we need to keep Saunders.

[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.

[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.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by redskinz79

And lets be honest, the only reason why we win game is not because of our explosive offense, it's because our defense puts us in a position to stay in the game.

The 2004 Redskins do not support this argument. That team had a fantastic defense. But the offense couldn't score. The result was a 6-10 season.

Even the best defenses you've ever seen can have a breakdown or two. And that doesn't even account for your opponent scoring on a punt or interception return.

You have to be able to score points offensively. The defense cannot do everything on their own.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

2004 was amazing defensively
2005 was in the top 1/3, but didn't create many turnovers, overall good
2006 poor, set NFL record low for turnovers created
2007 average at best. 2nd half of games have been poor defensively. 26th in generating turnovers.

The trend is going down, not up. Obviously after last year there was no where to go but up. We should be seeing consistent improvement or at least a steady level of defensive play in the top 1/3 of the NFL for a guy that is one of the highest paid coordinators. Gibbs has given him whatever he has asked for (Taylor, Rogers, McIntosh, Landry, Archuletta, Fletcher, Carter). Even with injuries and Sean's death, we have at least average talent on the defensive side of the ball.

Tampa's D for a few years was amazing, Ravens D was amazing. Bears D 2005-06 was amazing. Our defense has not been amazing outside of 2004.

I'm not to the point for calling for his job outright but I am off of the Grilliams bandwagon.. The defense is decent, but is getting killed in the 2nd halves of games..

The offense has had more injuries (entire right side of the OL, Rabach, Moss, ARE, Thrash, Sellers, Campbell have all missed some or all of games this year) than the defense (Rogers, Washington, Taylor-RIP, now McIntosh) yet the offense has still be relatively productive, especially in first halves of games, but the D has not held up late in games..

[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.

[MTRedskinsFan]

I said yes, but only if he gets total control. I also think the only way that will really happen is if Gibbs is not the HC next year. Not that I think he should fully retire, but would be very happy to see Gibbs move into another role within the organization.

I've also started to wonder whether Saunders will choose to move on to bigger and better. He was so successful when he had control of the reigns in KC, and anyone can imagine how frustrating it's probably been to compromise in offensive stategy (particularly in regard to being "influenced" to call 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 run plays in a row when every guy on the opposing team knows exactly what's coming). I remember the heady day of KC's #1 offense very well and that kind of thing NEVER happened.

Anyway, Saunders may have better opportunities emerge outside D.C. and I think it would leave us in worse shape.

[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.

[Daseal]

SmootSmack: I think you're wrong. Most people saying go for the kill, want us to continue moving the ball as we were. You haven't noticed us doing one thing, getting up, then going back on our haunches? Late in the game, I want to see high percentage pass plays, sometimes even on first or second down. Running 3 times burns some time, but getting a first down or two burns a lot more.

By go for the kill it's the continuation of offense for 60 minutes. Not what happened half the season where we play offense, go to halftime, stop playing offense, try to start playing to win the game.

People that are blaming the defense for losing these games. How many games have we lost where the defense gave up less than 20 points. A lot. To me, scoring defense is the most important stat, and we're doing damn good. We didn't even let Buffalo score a TD, but they still beat us. The defense is on the field a long time, they're tired, and they shouldn't be required to win 3/4ths of the games.

[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?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Daseal

SmootSmack: I think you're wrong. Most people saying go for the kill, want us to continue moving the ball as we were. You haven't noticed us doing one thing, getting up, then going back on our haunches? Late in the game, I want to see high percentage pass plays, sometimes even on first or second down. Running 3 times burns some time, but getting a first down or two burns a lot more.

By go for the kill it's the continuation of offense for 60 minutes. Not what happened half the season where we play offense, go to halftime, stop playing offense, try to start playing to win the game.

People that are blaming the defense for losing these games. How many games have we lost where the defense gave up less than 20 points. A lot. To me, scoring defense is the most important stat, and we're doing damn good. We didn't even let Buffalo score a TD, but they still beat us. The defense is on the field a long time, they're tired, and they shouldn't be required to win 3/4ths of the games.

Agree to disagree, I suppose. I wish we had a playoff spot locked up so we could "go for the kill" and then get burned. And then see what people say. I'm not convinced that most people mean "continuation of the offense" (whatever that means)

[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.

[KLHJ2]

I concur with Daseal, there is nothing more frustrating as a fan than to watch your team go up and down the field against opposing defenses only to see them turn around and go 3 and out over and over at the end of games. How hard is it to just keep moving the ball and maintain posession at the end? More often than not when we put our defense in a position to win the game for us at the end, it backfires. I would like to see high percentage pass plays on 1st and second down and runs on third down at the end of games. Other teams know that we are going to run on 1st and 2nd and try and pass on 3rd.

If I know its comming, then those who get paid to defend it sure as hell do too.

[troy]

in 05 with gibbs running the offence we were the 11th ranked offence in the nfl. i think gibbs needs to leave the front office politics alone and stick to the coaching. so i voted no!!!

[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.