Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Saunders does use the H-back...


wilbur58z

Recommended Posts

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4179/is_20040805/ai_n11815749/print

Thought I'd post this since there have been questions concerning whether or not Saunders uses the H-back position (ie how he will use Cooley).

The article linked to above is from 2004 and concerns the Chiefs 2nd round pick that year - Kris Wilson, a TE from Pittsburgh - and how he was going to fit into Saunders offense. It sounds like the exact role Cooley (drafted that same year, only in the 3rd round) plays here in Washington.

Since he was drafted, Wilson evidently has had injury problems and has barely seen the field.

But it goes to show Saunders probably appreciates what someone like Cooley can do and will probably use him just like Gibbs did.

Also, when you look at Kansas City's offense, they had a Pro Bowl fullback in Tony Richardson, Gonzalez as the receiving tight end, Jason Dunn as the mammoth blocking tight end, and Wilson as (or was going to be) the H-back.

I think that translates to this here in DC: Sellers at FB, Fauria as the receiving tight end, Johnson as the blocking tight end (in two TE packages), and Cooley remains at H-back.

I know some will question having Fauria play the Gonzalez role, but I don't think the tight end will be the emphasis in DC when it comes to the passing game. I think it will instead be on the receivers and Cooley for us, positions our offense is vastly superior to Kansas City at.

So I think we'll basically have Fauria stay back and block more in order to provide protection for Brunell, who's trying to get the ball to the receivers and Cooley.

Which may be needed because our offensive line has to prove it can play to the level of Kansas City's. The Chiefs have had one of the best, if not *the* best, lines in the NFL the past few years. Our line may need more help...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem here has been that too many people insist on trying to put lablels on certain players: Is this guy a tight end or an H-back? or Is this guy a blocking tight end or a receiving tight end? or even Is this guy a slot-receiver? or a possession receiver? or a "#1" or "#2" receiver?

I cracks me up because most of these are fan and media-based terms. They have VERY LITTLE to do with how coaches execute their offenses. Coaches think in terms of packages and matchups. Joe Gibbs never had a "#1" receiver. Neither has Al Saunders. Of course, someone had to lead the team in receptions, or yards, or TDs, but it had little to do with playcalling. The slot is an area on the field, not a position. All tight ends block. Coaches like Gibbs and Saunders are always looking for ways to exploit defenses. That's going to determine who's on the field and where the ball is going.

As far as how Saunders and Gibbs (and their offense WILL be a collaborative effort) will use Chris Cooley, they certainly will use packages where Cooley, Fauria, and Sellers on the field at the same time. There will be packages where none of them are on the field. There will be packages where Cooley lines up as a traditional tight end. Some where he's in motion. Some where's he's in the backfield. And some where he's split out wide. But I can guarantee that Cooley will be a focal point.

I just don't understand the need for labels. They simply don't correspond much to what's going to happen on the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember a press conference Vermiel had after the skins Cheifs game where he was giving Gibbs props... saying that they have very similar offenses and that he used an offense similar with what Gibbs was doing in the early 90s. He mentioned the H-Back as one of the things he uses that came from Gibbs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting find. Thanks for the post.

But just to keep things fresh, I'll play Devil's advocate: why do you think Saunders passed up on drafting Cooley? I'm sure the GM made the final decision but still...what do you guys think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem here has been that too many people insist on trying to put lablels on certain players: Is this guy a tight end or an H-back? or Is this guy a blocking tight end or a receiving tight end? or even Is this guy a slot-receiver? or a possession receiver? or a "#1" or "#2" receiver?

I cracks me up because most of these are fan and media-based terms. They have VERY LITTLE to do with how coaches execute their offenses. Coaches think in terms of packages and matchups. Joe Gibbs never had a "#1" receiver. Neither has Al Saunders. Of course, someone had to lead the team in receptions, or yards, or TDs, but it had little to do with playcalling. The slot is an area on the field, not a position. All tight ends block. Coaches like Gibbs and Saunders are always looking for ways to exploit defenses. That's going to determine who's on the field and where the ball is going.

As far as how Saunders and Gibbs (and their offense WILL be a collaborative effort) will use Chris Cooley, they certainly will use packages where Cooley, Fauria, and Sellers on the field at the same time. There will be packages where none of them are on the field. There will be packages where Cooley lines up as a traditional tight end. Some where he's in motion. Some where's he's in the backfield. And some where he's split out wide. But I can guarantee that Cooley will be a focal point.

I just don't understand the need for labels. They simply don't correspond much to what's going to happen on the field.

:applause: Well put. :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting find. Thanks for the post.

But just to keep things fresh, I'll play Devil's advocate: why do you think Saunders passed up on drafting Cooley? I'm sure the GM made the final decision but still...what do you guys think?

At the time it could be possible that Wilson looked to be the better player, which allowed Cooley to fall where he did.

But after two years.. it really doesn't matter because it is fact that Cooley has far out produced then Wilson (Injury or not). He was definately the better pick up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting find. Thanks for the post.

But just to keep things fresh, I'll play Devil's advocate: why do you think Saunders passed up on drafting Cooley? I'm sure the GM made the final decision but still...what do you guys think?

I dont think Saunders as the OC had enough influence over the draft as some might think. Th Chiefs work with a traditional General Manager and then head coach may have some say. OC is towards the bottom of the list. Just because they didn't draft him doesn't mean they didn't want to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But just to keep things fresh, I'll play Devil's advocate: why do you think Saunders passed up on drafting Cooley? I'm sure the GM made the final decision but still...what do you guys think?

I betcha anything that the Skins were looking at Kris Wilson, as well, and if they had the choice between Wilson and Cooley, they might have chosen Wilson.

Wilson is more athletic and faster than Cooley, and probably projected as more of a weapon down the seams than Cooley. The Chiefs, I'm sure, were looking at Wilson as an eventual successor to Tony Gonzales, too. Again, that athleticism was a factor in that decision.

Of course, in hindsight, Cooley has proved more athletic than origanally given credit for and, more importantly, has proven very durable. The guy's a weapon whom Saunders will enjoy employing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...