Al Saunders: was he necessary?

Schneed10 · 09-19-2006, 11:26 PM

Of course Saunders has nothing to do with the defense. And they've been way more disappointing than the offense.

EternalEnigma21 · 09-20-2006, 12:11 AM

I haven't read all of the posts in this thread, but... I agree with the questioning of the Al Saunders thing. I don't dislike the guy and am not calling for a resignation, but it took us 2 years to get Gibb's offense up and running with the right people....

It seemed like after we got to the playoffs, why re-do everything. Bringing in a couple of explosive recievers should've made our offense click better and left more things open up to us.

Last year, you take away moss and single cover everyone else... leave a spy in the middle and we're done...

Saunder's offense is supposed to Pass to open up the Run, right? I havent seen that since the first two series in the Minnesota game. After that its been run run throw it out of bounds and punt... repeat.

Thats like more of a mundane gibbs based offense not clicking right. I dunno, but I did feel like we're setting ourselves up with excuses for the next two years with Al Saunders and Jason Campbell. I would've been less nervous with Brunell running the same offense with more recievers around him this year.

Now, this year we have a new offense to learn.. and next year we have a new QB to learn the offense and his recievers... too many excuses set up to not succeed scares me a bit.

joegibbsuperbowl · 09-20-2006, 01:13 AM

Saunders offense needs a drop back QB. It is the same offense they ran with the Rams and KC.

Brunell is a bootleg/ roll out QB.

The offense will not work unless we bench Brunell and put in Collins.

pg86 · 09-21-2006, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joegibbsuperbowl

Saunders offense needs a drop back QB. It is the same offense they ran with the Rams and KC.

Brunell is a bootleg/ roll out QB.

The offense will not work unless we bench Brunell and put in Collins.

What did I say?? I know it sounds like a bad idea..but this offense would be dynamite with collins at the helm simply because as long as the line holds up he can bomb one downfield to that dangerous reciving unit we have! Or run it up the gut with portis..or hell...with this offense we could run sweeps the line needs to block though. Yes Collins is pretty much second rate to Brunell Stat wise and stuff but think about it...Collins did ok with the bills didn't he?

Im rethinking my position on this because Cambell really isn't gonna do much better than brunell with this new system because He isnt used to it, Collins would He has experience with the system, and despite Collins muff ups in preseason try to remember that was not the starting O line or the starting O he was dealing with, and that he scored the only points in preseason right? If Brunell can't learn this system in time.....ie this weekend and the next week then put in collins.

If we keep Cambell and we keep this system..and Gibbs sticks around, and we can actually maintain what we have on offense in time we probably will be dominant....we do need to incorperate some of Gibbs plays into that playbook though...Gibbs roll outs and pull traps work at every level when u have a line!

SmootSmack · 09-21-2006, 02:23 PM

Collins was mediocre at best with the Bills. Because you know the system doesn't necessarily mean you're the best choice to execute it

redsk1 · 09-21-2006, 04:40 PM

We improved our O last year, but if i remember right we weren't exactly burning it up the last 3-4 games of the year. We struggled. We really struggled against good defenses.

So to say we would have been much different in Gibb's O, we can't say for sure.

Al Saunders has a pretty good resume, but requires a decent qb to lead the team. Yes, alot of the blame goes to the o line but alot of blame goes to the qb, as well.

So, i think Al S. will be a good thing for this team especially if our qb steps up and makes some plays. There were several times when Brunell "rolled" into the blitz, instead of stepping up and finding the right man.

skinsguy · 09-21-2006, 05:12 PM

It's funny how people, at the end of last season, were begging for an offensive coordinator, and now several appear to be thinking...maybe we should've kept things the same from last year. This is what I preached on last year....all we needed were a couple upgrades in the WR department. I like Saunders and think he will ultimately give us a great offense, but maybe this was the if it's not broken (that much anyway) why fix it situation.

09-19-2006, 11:26 PM	#61
Schneed10 A Dude Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Newtown Square, PA Age: 45 Posts: 12,421	Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary? Of course Saunders has nothing to do with the defense. And they've been way more disappointing than the offense. __________________ God made certain people to play football. He was one of them.

09-20-2006, 12:11 AM	#62
EternalEnigma21 Assistant Regional Mod Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Carbondale CO Age: 44 Posts: 2,958	Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary? I haven't read all of the posts in this thread, but... I agree with the questioning of the Al Saunders thing. I don't dislike the guy and am not calling for a resignation, but it took us 2 years to get Gibb's offense up and running with the right people.... It seemed like after we got to the playoffs, why re-do everything. Bringing in a couple of explosive recievers should've made our offense click better and left more things open up to us. Last year, you take away moss and single cover everyone else... leave a spy in the middle and we're done... Saunder's offense is supposed to Pass to open up the Run, right? I havent seen that since the first two series in the Minnesota game. After that its been run run throw it out of bounds and punt... repeat. Thats like more of a mundane gibbs based offense not clicking right. I dunno, but I did feel like we're setting ourselves up with excuses for the next two years with Al Saunders and Jason Campbell. I would've been less nervous with Brunell running the same offense with more recievers around him this year. Now, this year we have a new offense to learn.. and next year we have a new QB to learn the offense and his recievers... too many excuses set up to not succeed scares me a bit. __________________ I am the brute squad.

09-20-2006, 01:13 AM	#63
joegibbsuperbowl Camp Scrub Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 3	Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary? Saunders offense needs a drop back QB. It is the same offense they ran with the Rams and KC. Brunell is a bootleg/ roll out QB. The offense will not work unless we bench Brunell and put in Collins.

09-21-2006, 02:23 PM	#65
SmootSmack Uncle Phil Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 45,256	Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary? Collins was mediocre at best with the Bills. Because you know the system doesn't necessarily mean you're the best choice to execute it __________________ You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

09-21-2006, 04:40 PM	#66
redsk1 The Starter Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,351	Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary? We improved our O last year, but if i remember right we weren't exactly burning it up the last 3-4 games of the year. We struggled. We really struggled against good defenses. So to say we would have been much different in Gibb's O, we can't say for sure. Al Saunders has a pretty good resume, but requires a decent qb to lead the team. Yes, alot of the blame goes to the o line but alot of blame goes to the qb, as well. So, i think Al S. will be a good thing for this team especially if our qb steps up and makes some plays. There were several times when Brunell "rolled" into the blitz, instead of stepping up and finding the right man.

09-21-2006, 05:12 PM	#67
skinsguy Pro Bowl Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Greensboro, North Carolina Posts: 6,766	Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary? It's funny how people, at the end of last season, were begging for an offensive coordinator, and now several appear to be thinking...maybe we should've kept things the same from last year. This is what I preached on last year....all we needed were a couple upgrades in the WR department. I like Saunders and think he will ultimately give us a great offense, but maybe this was the if it's not broken (that much anyway) why fix it situation. __________________ "Fire Up That Diesel!"

Al Saunders: was he necessary?

Locker Room Main Forum