Al Saunders: was he necessary?

dmek25 · 09-18-2006, 07:56 AM

i agree with thatguy. in the glory years, coach gibbs was the offensive co ordinator, and he trusted pettibone and the boys with the defense. greg williams has proved that he can coach a good defense, so im not sure why this move was made. the latter half of last year, i thought coach gibbs figured our offense out, what plays worked with what personnel, and basically called good games(i.e. the dallas game and the giants game come to mind) it seemed that they were comfortable with him and gibbs with them. i still dont understand why saunders was brought in

SKINSnCANES · 09-18-2006, 08:07 AM

His offense works, if you execute it.

A) Receivers were open, but Brunell doesnt risk throwing it down field. Moss had Newman beat most of the game but brunell only threw it to Ladell Betts. Who by the way is our new 2.5 yd man. If ya ever need 2.5 yards, you can hand it off to him OR throw it to him...thats being a versitile player right there...

B) Do you think it was Gibbs or Saunders who with a minute left decided to run the clock out at the half? Why in hell are we always like that, almost any other team would have tried to atleast get in field goal range and get some mementum going into the half...That really pissed me off.

Brunell needs to open up more, throw the all down field, give his receivers a chance to make a play. He wont throw the ball if someoen is within ten yards of them...

#56fanatic · 09-18-2006, 08:18 AM

I keep hearing the same thing over and over, "it's going to take time for this offense to come together, blah blah blah" As we all know, there is no such thing as patience in DC. I dont think the organization expected for this to take this much time. No way in hell they went into this season expecting to struggle offensively for a few games, then turn it on. It is awful. I just dont understand it, everytime we take a step forward during a season, we take 5 back. we make the playoffs in 99, then crap out in 2000 through 2004. make the playoffs last year, now we look like crap. Last night reminded me of a Norv Turner team. Penalties, dumb plays, can't get the D off the damn field. its embarrassing! pay all the damn money we pay for the players and coaches, and we got schooled from the front office, the coaches, and the players.

TheMalcolmConnection · 09-18-2006, 08:29 AM

Yes, I'm all done with Brunell. Saunders wasn't necessary by any means, but Brunell is the one who has to make the plays. He's TOO GODDAMN CAREFUL. I know he doesn't want to throw picks, but how about letting your playmakers make a play every now and then? Last year, he'd heave it up there if he thought the receivers had a decent shot of coming down with it.

rickmmrr · 09-18-2006, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Yes, I'm all done with Brunell. Saunders wasn't necessary by any means, but Brunell is the one who has to make the plays. He's TOO GODDAMN CAREFUL. I know he doesn't want to throw picks, but how about letting your playmakers make a play every now and then? Last year, he'd heave it up there if he thought the receivers had a decent shot of coming down with it.

That is axactly right. And it's never been as obvious to see then in last nights game.

brianconner · 09-18-2006, 09:12 AM

Far too often, players were just standing around, or going quarter speed, rather than playing like they want to win.

Many times, I saw linemen who would lose the outside or inside to the defensive guy and they'd just give up. You could see them just standing there, watching Brunell get hit or rushed.

Then there were the receivers, who wouldn't run full out unless they were the primary or secondary. I saw Brunell being forced to throw it away because the receivers simply gave up on him.

It looks more like the Skins of the 60s than it does a Gibbs coached team. If TV would show the sideline shots more, I bet you'd see more players sitting down on the bench than standing up and cheering the offense/defense on. They give the very definite impression of a team that doesn't think it can win.

So sad . . . and I've been a Redskins fan since the late 50s. This team is beginning to look like it's stuck on losing. Gibbs needs to immediately put his strong hand back into the team and shake 'em up good.

Longtimefan · 09-18-2006, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianconner

Far too often, players were just standing around, or going quarter speed, rather than playing like they want to win.

Many times, I saw linemen who would lose the outside or inside to the defensive guy and they'd just give up. You could see them just standing there, watching Brunell get hit or rushed.

Then there were the receivers, who wouldn't run full out unless they were the primary or secondary. I saw Brunell being forced to throw it away because the receivers simply gave up on him.

It looks more like the Skins of the 60s than it does a Gibbs coached team. If TV would show the sideline shots more, I bet you'd see more players sitting down on the bench than standing up and cheering the offense/defense on. They give the very definite impression of a team that doesn't think it can win.

So sad . . . and I've been a Redskins fan since the late 50s. This team is beginning to look like it's stuck on losing. Gibbs needs to immediately put his strong hand back into the team and shake 'em up good.

Welcome aboard brainconner, I see you have been playing close attention espically to the unspoken language on the sideline. Maybe team attitude needs a boost as well. We share one thing in common, we both go back a long ways. We've both seen a lot of Redskin football, but what I am seeing lately looks like one continuous game.

brianconner · 09-18-2006, 01:36 PM

Thank you for the welcome, Longtimefan.

Yup, it seems that way, or maybe they're stuck in a Groundhog Day kinda thing. An endless loop, until they figure out The One Key Concept, whatever it is.

#56fanatic · 09-18-2006, 09:14 AM

I was excited when the brought Saunders in and the WR pick ups and so. But if I remember correctly, when Joe had these types of players in his previous stent, he had 3 1000 yard receivers in 1 season, broke all kinds of scoring records and so on. Now, last year when we had Patten and Moss our offense was moving the ball the fine. We put points up against tough defenses and looked good. Moss goes down we struggle. Now, we bring Lloyd and El, to go with Moss and Cooley. If this organiztion wanted to win and win now, why bring in a totally new offensive scheme. Plus, your QB of future now has to learn ANOTHER offense. which, now this essentially becomes another Rookie year for him. The more I thought about this, the more I began to question it. We dont have rocket scientists trying to catch the ball for us, so you know there is going to be a good bit of time spent learning this stuff. And historically, Saunders first year with a new team, the offense has been in the 20's. Which is why our D is going to struggle. That offense likes to move quickly, strike quick, and if we dont convert 3rd downs and have a bunch of 3 and outs, our D is simply going to wear down. Especially at the end of the game when we need a stand, they just wont have an gas left. If its going to take 8 weeks for this offense to start to gel, then why waste those 8 weeks with a 36 year old guy, I would rather waste them with someone who has a future

That Guy · 09-18-2006, 09:20 AM

during the draft i wanted a new LG more than anything. instead we got a OLB that has 2 tackles so far and a bunch of guys the 49ers didn't want...

TheMalcolmConnection · 09-18-2006, 09:27 AM

Speaking of the 49ers, I bet Lloyd is wishing he would have stayed. Smith is looking great.

That Guy · 09-18-2006, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Speaking of the 49ers, I bet Lloyd is wishing he would have stayed. Smith is looking great.

they didn't want to keep him, he might have been cut.

VTSkins897 · 09-18-2006, 09:53 AM

i often wonder that. or the flip side... if saunders is running the O, what's gibbs doing? not that i'd ever trade gibbs for saunders. we'll know in a few weeks whether the o starts rolling or not...

then we'll have another question. if it is indeed the case that it's just going to take time for the O to click... wouldn't it be smarter for us to use that time with a strong, young, potential franchise QB instead of slingshot brunell?

Pocket$ $traight · 09-18-2006, 10:06 AM

From my perspective, blaming Al Saunders is the easy thing to do and is incorrect.

Mark Brunell is the problem on offense. He is afraid to throw the ball. Saunders job is to get receivers open. Moss was open deep a few times last night. Brunell is either afraid to throw the ball or he physically cannot throw the ball.

artmonkforhallofamein07 · 09-18-2006, 10:13 AM

Well I hate to say this but I have to. It is happening again. It's like fucking dejavue of 2000. We go to the playoffs the year before and then bring in alot of talent that is suppose to get us to the superbowl and we start out 0-2. Only this time instead of trading in Brad Johnson for JEFF FUCKIN GEORGE, we trade in our greatest asset in Gibbs play calling for Al Saunders. I know the offense will come around sometime, but seriously the goal for this year was home field advantage through out the playoffs and they aren't going to get that done. Thats just how I feel today after that worthless game last night. Whats our record against the Cowboys in last few years now 5-19. UGGGGGGGGGGG

09-18-2006, 07:56 AM	#1
dmek25 MVP Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: lancaster,pa Age: 64 Posts: 10,672	Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary? i agree with thatguy. in the glory years, coach gibbs was the offensive co ordinator, and he trusted pettibone and the boys with the defense. greg williams has proved that he can coach a good defense, so im not sure why this move was made. the latter half of last year, i thought coach gibbs figured our offense out, what plays worked with what personnel, and basically called good games(i.e. the dallas game and the giants game come to mind) it seemed that they were comfortable with him and gibbs with them. i still dont understand why saunders was brought in __________________ "It's better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt." courtesy of 53fan

09-18-2006, 08:07 AM	#2
SKINSnCANES Pro Bowl Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: New Jersey Age: 44 Posts: 5,455	Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary? His offense works, if you execute it. A) Receivers were open, but Brunell doesnt risk throwing it down field. Moss had Newman beat most of the game but brunell only threw it to Ladell Betts. Who by the way is our new 2.5 yd man. If ya ever need 2.5 yards, you can hand it off to him OR throw it to him...thats being a versitile player right there... B) Do you think it was Gibbs or Saunders who with a minute left decided to run the clock out at the half? Why in hell are we always like that, almost any other team would have tried to atleast get in field goal range and get some mementum going into the half...That really pissed me off. Brunell needs to open up more, throw the all down field, give his receivers a chance to make a play. He wont throw the ball if someoen is within ten yards of them... __________________ "I'm used to winning, coming from the University of Miami. " Clinton Portis

09-18-2006, 08:18 AM	#3
#56fanatic The Starter Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Charlotte NC Age: 51 Posts: 1,801	Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary? I keep hearing the same thing over and over, "it's going to take time for this offense to come together, blah blah blah" As we all know, there is no such thing as patience in DC. I dont think the organization expected for this to take this much time. No way in hell they went into this season expecting to struggle offensively for a few games, then turn it on. It is awful. I just dont understand it, everytime we take a step forward during a season, we take 5 back. we make the playoffs in 99, then crap out in 2000 through 2004. make the playoffs last year, now we look like crap. Last night reminded me of a Norv Turner team. Penalties, dumb plays, can't get the D off the damn field. its embarrassing! pay all the damn money we pay for the players and coaches, and we got schooled from the front office, the coaches, and the players.

09-18-2006, 08:29 AM	#4
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Charlottesville, Virginia Age: 44 Posts: 19,264	Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary? Yes, I'm all done with Brunell. Saunders wasn't necessary by any means, but Brunell is the one who has to make the plays. He's TOO GODDAMN CAREFUL. I know he doesn't want to throw picks, but how about letting your playmakers make a play every now and then? Last year, he'd heave it up there if he thought the receivers had a decent shot of coming down with it. __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

09-18-2006, 09:12 AM	#6
brianconner Camp Scrub Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 2	Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary? Far too often, players were just standing around, or going quarter speed, rather than playing like they want to win. Many times, I saw linemen who would lose the outside or inside to the defensive guy and they'd just give up. You could see them just standing there, watching Brunell get hit or rushed. Then there were the receivers, who wouldn't run full out unless they were the primary or secondary. I saw Brunell being forced to throw it away because the receivers simply gave up on him. It looks more like the Skins of the 60s than it does a Gibbs coached team. If TV would show the sideline shots more, I bet you'd see more players sitting down on the bench than standing up and cheering the offense/defense on. They give the very definite impression of a team that doesn't think it can win. So sad . . . and I've been a Redskins fan since the late 50s. This team is beginning to look like it's stuck on losing. Gibbs needs to immediately put his strong hand back into the team and shake 'em up good.

09-18-2006, 01:36 PM	#8
brianconner Camp Scrub Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 2	Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary? Thank you for the welcome, Longtimefan. Yup, it seems that way, or maybe they're stuck in a Groundhog Day kinda thing. An endless loop, until they figure out The One Key Concept, whatever it is.

09-18-2006, 09:14 AM	#9
#56fanatic The Starter Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Charlotte NC Age: 51 Posts: 1,801	Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary? I was excited when the brought Saunders in and the WR pick ups and so. But if I remember correctly, when Joe had these types of players in his previous stent, he had 3 1000 yard receivers in 1 season, broke all kinds of scoring records and so on. Now, last year when we had Patten and Moss our offense was moving the ball the fine. We put points up against tough defenses and looked good. Moss goes down we struggle. Now, we bring Lloyd and El, to go with Moss and Cooley. If this organiztion wanted to win and win now, why bring in a totally new offensive scheme. Plus, your QB of future now has to learn ANOTHER offense. which, now this essentially becomes another Rookie year for him. The more I thought about this, the more I began to question it. We dont have rocket scientists trying to catch the ball for us, so you know there is going to be a good bit of time spent learning this stuff. And historically, Saunders first year with a new team, the offense has been in the 20's. Which is why our D is going to struggle. That offense likes to move quickly, strike quick, and if we dont convert 3rd downs and have a bunch of 3 and outs, our D is simply going to wear down. Especially at the end of the game when we need a stand, they just wont have an gas left. If its going to take 8 weeks for this offense to start to gel, then why waste those 8 weeks with a 36 year old guy, I would rather waste them with someone who has a future

09-18-2006, 09:20 AM	#10
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: VA Age: 43 Posts: 17,620	Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary? during the draft i wanted a new LG more than anything. instead we got a OLB that has 2 tackles so far and a bunch of guys the 49ers didn't want...

09-18-2006, 09:27 AM	#11
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Charlottesville, Virginia Age: 44 Posts: 19,264	Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary? Speaking of the 49ers, I bet Lloyd is wishing he would have stayed. Smith is looking great. __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

09-18-2006, 09:53 AM	#13
VTSkins897 Impact Rookie Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Richmond, VA Age: 43 Posts: 890	Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary? i often wonder that. or the flip side... if saunders is running the O, what's gibbs doing? not that i'd ever trade gibbs for saunders. we'll know in a few weeks whether the o starts rolling or not... then we'll have another question. if it is indeed the case that it's just going to take time for the O to click... wouldn't it be smarter for us to use that time with a strong, young, potential franchise QB instead of slingshot brunell?

09-18-2006, 10:06 AM	#14
Pocket$ $traight Registered User Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Fairfax, VA Age: 50 Posts: 4,261	Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary? From my perspective, blaming Al Saunders is the easy thing to do and is incorrect. Mark Brunell is the problem on offense. He is afraid to throw the ball. Saunders job is to get receivers open. Moss was open deep a few times last night. Brunell is either afraid to throw the ball or he physically cannot throw the ball.

09-18-2006, 10:13 AM	#15
artmonkforhallofamein07 Pro Bowl Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Charleston , SC Posts: 5,001	Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary? Well I hate to say this but I have to. It is happening again. It's like fucking dejavue of 2000. We go to the playoffs the year before and then bring in alot of talent that is suppose to get us to the superbowl and we start out 0-2. Only this time instead of trading in Brad Johnson for JEFF FUCKIN GEORGE, we trade in our greatest asset in Gibbs play calling for Al Saunders. I know the offense will come around sometime, but seriously the goal for this year was home field advantage through out the playoffs and they aren't going to get that done. Thats just how I feel today after that worthless game last night. Whats our record against the Cowboys in last few years now 5-19. UGGGGGGGGGGG __________________ Just win.

Al Saunders: was he necessary?

Locker Room Main Forum