Stew Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Agreed. If we were looking at just this year, then yes, we'd probably be better on O without the change. However, this was a long-term improvement for the team. This offense has a track-record of working so we should be excited to see the development! Then why is Brunell still playing if we arent trying to win right now? I agree that It was a step backwards to hire Saunders this season, but it was a necessary move for the future. So now Saunders is trying to make it by mashing both worlds together this season. A Gibbs built team with a veteran QB with an Al Saunders high powered offense in its first year of a 700+ page playbook. I know I was counting this as a win when going over our schedule this offseason, where do we overachieve now to make up that loss? I dunno. It didnt look much like a gibbs offense out there to me. The ONLY thing that keeps my spirits high is that Dallas and NY lost on Sunday, and when it comes down to the come down, we only need to beat up on these teams to make it to the dance. I Still see us making it to the playoffs, but it aint gonna be pretty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Here is my question about Saunders: Everyone says, "He made the Chiefs Offense #1, and they didn't have the WRs we have" Well, could that possibly be because, Al Saunders offense has never been about downfield passing/vertical passing game, and has been more about the running game and screen passes and stuff like that? If I remember correctly from what I have seen from the Chiefs, I don't remember a lot of Trent Green dropping back and chucking the ball, it was a LOT of screen passes, short yardage dumpoffs, and a couple of passes to Tony Gonzalez in the middle of the field........ Is it possible that we got the Wrong O-Coordinator for the type personnel on offense we have? In my opinion, with the personnel we have now, we would be perfectly ok running Gibb's offense. I mean who utilized the WR position more, The Gibbs superbowl teams or the Kansas City Chiefs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Is it possible that we got the Wrong O-Coordinator for the type personnel on offense we have? In my opinion, with the personnel we have now, we would be perfectly ok running Gibb's offense. I mean who utilized the WR position more, The Gibbs superbowl teams or the Kansas City Chiefs? From his bio: In 2005, Saunders coached the most explosive offense in the NFL, leading the League with 70 total plays over 20 yards including an NFL-high 15 touchdowns. Kansas City also led the League in yards per play (5.85) and topped the NFL in eight other offensive categories. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Then why is Brunell still playing if we arent trying to win right now? I agree that It was a step backwards to hire Saunders this season, but it was a necessary move for the future. So now Saunders is trying to make it by mashing both worlds together this season. A Gibbs built team with a veteran QB with an Al Saunders high powered offense in its first year of a 700+ page playbook. I know I was counting this as a win when going over our schedule this offseason, where do we overachieve now to make up that loss? I dunno. It didnt look much like a gibbs offense out there to me. The ONLY thing that keeps my spirits high is that Dallas and NY lost on Sunday, and when it comes down to the come down, we only need to beat up on these teams to make it to the dance. I Still see us making it to the playoffs, but it aint gonna be pretty. Well because you're never "not trying to win" games. It's just that the offense will take time to fully settle in. Honestly, we nearly won this game while struggling with the offense so why would we start a season by just going to the young, unproven guy. If we are 2-6 or something, I'm sure Campbell will get his shot, but you have to put yourself in the best position to win while making strides toward the future. That's my take at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 It's like shifting to a higher gear in a car. When you press down the clutch to switch gears, you lose speed and are coasting until the next gear is engaged. We're still engaging the clutch in this offense. Relax. We'll get there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwebst1 Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 did a search, didn't see anything posted...Ray Brown made a great point last night after the Skins horrific loss. He said the only real change the Skins needed this season was needing a 2nd WR to compliment Moss rather than an entire new offense. Now, I know alot of you are going to say that it isn't a new offense, it's a hybrid. But after playing football for some time, anytime you have a new coordinator, it is a new offense. In hearing the players speak after the game, the common tone that I heard about how it's a new offense and it'll take time for everyone to get on the same page. Anyone else concerned that the Skins 'over-fixed' a problem that wasn't really necessary? I posted the same thing the other day... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 From his bio:Jason Ok, but that bio doesn't say what the plays were that netted 20 yards. It could have been a lot of RB screens to Priest Holmes. I am talking about utilizing a tandem of WRs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70th Week Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Minn. also has a new offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangars Posted September 13, 2006 Author Share Posted September 13, 2006 Minn. also has a new offense. Because Minnesota has a new coach. We don't. They didn't make the playoffs last year. We did. Minnesota needed to overhaul their system from last year. We didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrimmage Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 Nope. Saunders will be here when Gibbs is gone. This is the offense Jason Campbell will take to future Super Bowls. just not this year ... I agree with this post, as well as with Ray Brown's sentiment. I just hope I can come to agree with the current players who are saying that this new offense needs time, but more importantly that that time will come soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YouBrokeMyHeartFredo Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 I agree - our defense is a bigger concern right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 Nope. Saunders will be here when Gibbs is gone. This is the offense Jason Campbell will take to future Super Bowls.We all know how many SB titles the Chiefs have over the last few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 Ok, but that bio doesn't say what the plays were that netted 20 yards. It could have been a lot of RB screens to Priest Holmes.I am talking about utilizing a tandem of WRs. Looking at the stats from last year for plays over 20 yards. Kennison: 17 Johnson: 15 rushing, 4 receiving Gonzalez: 9 Parker: 8 Hall: 5 Holmes: 3 Rushing, 3 receiving So, for WRs and TEs, there were 39 plays, and for RBs it was 25. This noteing that last year was a down year for Gonzo because he was forced to block more often last year. He averages more than 15 +20 yard plays a year since 2000. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 We all know how many SB titles the Chiefs have over the last few years. Considering that we have a far better D than the Chiefs, I think that would make a difference. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iceman330 Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 did a search, didn't see anything posted...Ray Brown made a great point last night after the Skins horrific loss. He said the only real change the Skins needed this season was needing a 2nd WR to compliment Moss rather than an entire new offense. Now, I know alot of you are going to say that it isn't a new offense, it's a hybrid. But after playing football for some time, anytime you have a new coordinator, it is a new offense. In hearing the players speak after the game, the common tone that I heard about how it's a new offense and it'll take time for everyone to get on the same page. Anyone else concerned that the Skins 'over-fixed' a problem that wasn't really necessary? I liked the comments on the OLine. We have one guy who gets beat play after play....Jansen! I hope somebody out there will finally call him out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiefPowhatan17 Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 I agree with Ray Brown, we were finally in the right direction. And for those who think Gibbs will step down, Gibbs might be here longer than Saunders if it keeps going the way it went the other night. Gibbs said 5 years, that means 5 years. And even though our defense didn't play great cause of the corners, the offense didn't do anything great either. GW will be here, but Saunders might want to look in Gibbs' playbook to try some stuff that might work. Like running between the tackles.:logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaSkinzBaby Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 Might I add something, since Al and Joe came from the same cloth (coryell) I don't think that the new offense is that different. The motions, yes but the plays are basically the same thing maybe a few wrinkles. It is still ridiculous that of all the times in the red zone Duckett wasn't used. PLEASE there is no excuse for that...Sellers and Duckett equals TD's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcgamer Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 all you naysayers come back and eat crow when you are putting up 28+ per week about midseason. damn, you were mere yards from scoring at least 28 this week. and just 1 boneheaded brunell throw from winning the damn game anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.