H-back Position Disappearing ?

[JWsleep]

Saw this up at extremeskins--seems relevant. Saunders knows about the h-back, and will use it when it creates matchup problems, which is what his offense is all about. Anyway, it's an interesting read, from 2004 when the chiefs drafted TE Kris Wilson (who got hurt and never really got going). People asked why draft another TE when they had Gonzales. The answer: H-back, basically. Check it out.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...11815749/print

[MTK]

Saunders' offense doesn't feature the H-back... so naturally we're not going to have the H-back this year since this is Saunders' offense.

Let's not kid ourselves, the offense is going to be Saunders' show to run.

[GTripp0012]

Thanks JWsleep, great read. People who remember the 2004 draft remember that Wilson went a round before Cooley.

And we know how that turned out.

[AnonEmouse]

Might I also point out that there are various twin TE formations where teams use blocking and pass catching TE's on the same play. Saunders could very well switch up FB and a pass catching TE or motion Cooley from the FB position.

I don't think Cooley will have a problem getting off the line anyway, and there are so many options to motion various players, that he will definitely be in the mix without major changes to his position (i.e. he won't have to relearn his role).

[jermus22]

Our personnel fit much better into a Saunders offense rather than the traditional Gibbs style. Don't get me wrong, I like Gibbs' offense and I think it worked fairly well last year. But having both Sellers and Cooley on the field together at FB and TE respectively would be more effective rather than alternating them at H-B and using Fauria and Robert Johnson at TE. Also, while Portis has done an awesome job for us, he strikes me more as a Priest Holmes kind-of-guy, someone known as an outside runner and receiver as opposed to the typical Gibbs type: a smashmouth runner in the mold of John Riggins, George Rogers, Gerald Riggs, and Earnest Byner. Gibbs did have guys like Joe Washington, Timmy Smith, and Ricky Ervins perform well in his offense, but they always had limited roles and served primarily as backups. Portis will do fine no matter how the team utilizes him, but I think a Saunders offense matches his skill set better.

[jermus22]

Oh yeah, and Manuel White will probably work better as a FB instead of an H-B.

[freddyg12]

At this point, there's no right or wrong answer, and contrary to what a few have said in this thread, we can't say what Saunders' authority is, or if the H-back will be eliminated.
Gibbs is a great strategist & part of that is not showing your cards too early. I'm sure he hopes other teams are wondering about the h-back as well & what offense they'll see

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

At this point, there's no right or wrong answer, and contrary to what a few have said in this thread, we can't say what Saunders' authority is, or if the H-back will be eliminated.
Gibbs is a great strategist & part of that is not showing your cards too early. I'm sure he hopes other teams are wondering about the h-back as well & what offense they'll see

This may be the case, but I doubt that they would hire Saunders as another assistant on offense. I would think that Saunders was brought in to be in charge of the offense, which was similar to the role he had in KC.

I agree that gibbs is a great strategist, but he was and is doing so much now that he needed to free himself of some of his duties. What better coach than Saunders. He's a guy who learned the same offensive philosophies and is a great offensive mind in his own right. It was perfect timing with his situation.

Gibbs is great at what he's doing now, but he was spreading himself too thin. Saunders is taking over the offense. It wouldn't make sense to me to give him another role on this team. This role is where he has proven success in and what he is great at.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

This may be the case, but I doubt that they would hire Saunders as another assistant on offense. I would think that Saunders was brought in to be in charge of the offense, which was similar to the role he had in KC.

I agree that gibbs is a great strategist, but he was and is doing so much now that he needed to free himself of some of his duties. What better coach than Saunders. He's a guy who learned the same offensive philosophies and is a great offensive mind in his own right. It was perfect timing with his situation.

Gibbs is great at what he's doing now, but he was spreading himself too thin. Saunders is taking over the offense. It wouldn't make sense to me to give him another role on this team. This role is where he has proven success in and what he is great at.

Understood, My main point is that Gibbs & co. would not come out & say "Al Saunders will control all of the offense." They want the rest of the league (& us for that matter) to keep guessing as to what the offense will be. Don't be surprised if there are some hybrid plays & some old gibbs' plays, especially the counter trey & wideout screen.
I'm just saying that at this point we don't know the specific involvement that Gibbs will have & he probably doesn't either. Later in the year he may take a more active role. The strategy at this point is for them now is to send a lot of smokescreens. That stuff on redskins.com about the h back may just be as bogus as a lot of draft rumors that teams put out there.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

Understood, My main point is that Gibbs & co. would not come out & say "Al Saunders will control all of the offense." They want the rest of the league (& us for that matter) to keep guessing as to what the offense will be. Don't be surprised if there are some hybrid plays & some old gibbs' plays, especially the counter trey & wideout screen.
I'm just saying that at this point we don't know the specific involvement that Gibbs will have & he probably doesn't either. Later in the year he may take a more active role. The strategy at this point is for them now is to send a lot of smokescreens. That stuff on redskins.com about the h back may just be as bogus as a lot of draft rumors that teams put out there.

I agree that it would benefit the redskins if they did not annouce strategic details, but as soon as a part of a game or practice becomes publicly accessible - it would be obvious who the wizard is behind the offensive curtain. It gets to the point where the misinformation gets counterproductive; I don't like the secretive stuff so much because it takes away some of the focus on improving in performance and execution. Not to mention that some egos need to be fed at least a little, like giving Saunders the respect of publicly acknowledging what he does with the team. They probably wouldn't want to belittle him by saying how little he does or (going the other way with it by) announcing that he has more duties than he really does, which would put more pressure and expectations on him.

All I am doing is reading between the lines and assuming what little they are saying is actually the truth. And they have announced in the story(ies):

.... Al Saunders taking over the reins of the Redskins' offense this year ...
(part of the first article posted in this thread)

The point of the whole thread was: initially the redskins seemed publicly unsure of how the offensive leadership was going to be directed. To me, by reading between the lines, I am speculating that no matter what they have said about Saunders's role, the "disappearing h-back" signals the confirmation of his role as THE offensive coaching leader.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

At this point, there's no right or wrong answer, and contrary to what a few have said in this thread, we can't say what Saunders' authority is, or if the H-back will be eliminated.
Gibbs is a great strategist & part of that is not showing your cards too early. I'm sure he hopes other teams are wondering about the h-back as well & what offense they'll see

I completely agree, but it's never too early to speculate.

On that note, can the Saints win it all in 2010?

[warriorzpath]

To me, to bring him in at any other role would be a waste of his talents.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

To me, to bring him in at any other role would be a waste of his talents.

don't knock it till you've tried it. maybe he'll put up even better stats or the overall offensive production will jump dramatically. worst case we can always revert back to the moss-cooley-out of bounds play of last year.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by That Guy

don't knock it till you've tried it. maybe he'll put up even better stats or the overall offensive production will jump dramatically. worst case we can always revert back to the moss-cooley-out of bounds play of last year.

I was referring to Saunders.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

I was referring to Saunders.

alrightly, misunderstood.