Let's Revist what Al Suanders Offense is

[Siven]

The point never has been Gibbs holding Saunders back from scoring. Those who complain about Gibbs not going for the throat don't understand how he likes to do it. He wants to do it running the ball AND chewing up the clock. I dare any of you to say, he coaches scared to his face, or to any of his offensive players. That's not what smashmouth is.

Do you guys really want to see Saunders call an end-around when it's 3rd and 1? If Saunders had it is way all the time, that's what we'd be seeing. That's what Gibbs is trying to prevent, that's what you guys are missing.

I'd say it to his face. He does not have what it takes to coach a consistent winner. You games in the NFL by going for the throat and stomping your opponent into the ground.

We nearly lost that Saints game last year because Gibbs didn't have the balls to go for a touchdown and just settled for a field goal. He puts way to much pressure on our defense to stop the other teams two minute drill and it is going to (and already has) bit us in in the ass more than it's helped us.

[taylorcoreskin]

If we want to talk about yards per game by the Chiefs' offense when Saunders was there, then ok.

I think we can agree the Chiefs defense was terrible. Therefore, I think it would be safe to assume the Chiefs fell behind in many games and were forced to play from behind. When a team is leading they tend to play a softer defense and try to prevent the big play. A softer defense is easier to move the ball against because they allow the underneath stuff. Underneath stuff, like passes to the running back, etc.. The Chiefs leading receivers during Saunders time with the Chiefs were RB Holmes and TE Gonzalez. A RB and a TE work primarily underneath (shorter routes, not fly patterns or deep posts).

:rotflmao:

Um, the raiders had the worst team in the league last season. According to your logic, they should have had the number 1 offense in the nfl because they were always behind and so the opposing defense tried to prevent the big play by employing " a soft defense".

[GibbsWon3ForAReason]

:rotflmao:

Um, the raiders had the worst team in the league last season. According to your logic, they should have had the number 1 offense in the nfl because they were always behind and so the opposing defense tried to prevent the big play by employing " a soft defense".

I see you are trying to put words in my mouth. I never said the Chiefs offensive success was because they had a bad defense.

My original point was Saunders offense with the Chiefs never led to any wins. They knew they had a bad defense, so why did the offense not try and control the ball to keep them off the field?

If you want Al Saunders to take complete control of the Redskins offense, then you and others that feel this way need to stop saying we need to stretch the field with our wide receivers and get Lloyd or another 3rd receiver involved.

If you want Saunders offense, then start demanding Portis/Betts lead our team in receptions.

[CustomApparelDirect]

I'm probably going to get ripped for saying this but I would love

to see Al Saunders in charge of more than just the offense(if you get my

drift).Then the shackles would be off.

EXACTLY!!! Gibbs should be Team PRESIDENT, while Saunders is HEAD Coach.:2cents:

If Gibbs would CEASE & DESIST in the "Soviet-style 'CENTRAL Command' MIS-coaching philosophy":doh: :mad: (i.e.: LET Al RUN His Offense); :applause: :2cents:

and, Gregg Williams would CURE his "DELUSIONS of our being a 'COVER-2 Defense'" :doh: :mad: (when, it is QUITE OBVIOUS that we are FANTASTIC in 'COVER-3')... :applause: :2cents:

the REDSKINS would be a GREAT Football Team!!!:applause: :2cents: :helmet: :logo: :point2sky

[jimster]

Funny, I forgot that Al Saunders was the head coach all of those years.

Oh, wait a minute, his job was to run the offense (which he did effectively).

Give the Skins a top 5 offense and we have every other tool required to be a menace in this conference.

you're right. Those same years the Chiefs had a top 5 offense under Saunders, 3 of those years the defense was in the bottom five, the other in the middle of the pack.

Joe needs to let Al do his thing - the whole game.

[taylorcoreskin]

I see you are trying to put words in my mouth. I never said the Chiefs offensive success was because they had a bad defense.

Right. You said they had offensive success because they were always behind. The raiders were also trailing in almost all of their games, but their offensive performance was laughable. So your suggestion that the Chief's offensive success was due to a preventative defensive scheme by the opponent holds little validity.

If you want Saunders offense, then start demanding Portis/Betts lead our team in receptions.

If we can average 380 yards per game, Joe Gibbs can lead the team in receptions for all I care.

[2006Skins]

Aren't we technically a top 10 offense? I think the problem is sustaining the drives and getting tds when we're in our opponent's redzone. Not Saunders.

[SKINS FAN #56]

My question is when we had 1st and goal at the 2 why don't we use both Betts & Portis in the back field? I don't know everything about football but if both players are in the game' date=' who does the defense focus on at that point?[/quote']

That's a really good point.

They're both l what Bettis and Parker were in Pittsburgh. I'd like to see how the defense would respond.

[Oldfan]

Joe Gibbs and Al Saunders knew, or should have known, that that are fundamental differences in their schemes. These differences should have been worked out before Al came on board.

Joe and Al knew, or should have known, that Mark Brunell did not fit Al's scheme and could not run it as Trent Green did in Kansas City.

Joe and Al knew, or should have known, that Clinton Portis does not have the skills as a receiver needed to function in Al's system like a Priest Holmes.

Joe and Al surely realize by now that Jason Campbell does not have the accuracy of a Trent Green and it's highly unlikely that he will ever be able to run the Saunders scheme as Trent did.

Their task now is to work with what they have, to adapt a scheme to the strengths and weaknesses of their current players.

What we are seeing is nothing like the Gibbs offense of the 80s or the Al Saunders offense in his Kansas City days.

[TSO]

I disagree with this. If he didn't trust JC to air it out, then why was he allowed to do so the first half? Why has he been airing it out consitently early in games. You don't trust him some of the time, and not trust him the rest of the time. You either do or you don't.

To me, a crystal clear mark of Saunders offense was last week vs. the Eagles when Campbell missed Moss open deep to clinch the game. That was attacking. That was Saunders offense, that was the killer instinct that the team needed. That was not what was run the second half of the Giants game. I just wonder if Campbell and Moss hooked up for that bomb if the playcalling in the second half would have been any different.

Why are we all conveniently forgetting the deep pass to Moss that Campbell missed in the second half of the Giants game? Hello??? Moss had a step on his guy, and Jason overthrew him. That was attacking. Stop exaggerating people.

[GibbsWon3ForAReason]

Right. You said they had offensive success because they were always behind. The raiders were also trailing in almost all of their games, but their offensive performance was laughable. So your suggestion that the Chief's offensive success was due to a preventative defensive scheme by the opponent holds little validity.

I never said the offensive success of Saunders' Chiefs was because they were behind. What I have been saying is your defense has an impact on your offense and your offense has an impact on your defense.

The Colts defenses of the past (prior to last season) were just as bad if not worse than the Chiefs defenses during Saunders years with them, but the Colts still managed to win some playoff games.

If we can average 380 yards per game, Joe Gibbs can lead the team in receptions for all I care.

I won love to average 380 yards per game and score 30+ points every game, but the question is how do we accomplish that with the personnel we have. Saunders success in Kansas City was by primarily throwing the ball to Holmes and Gonzalez. Holmes was a major part of their passing attack.

Do you think we can win with Portis/Betts being a major part of our passing game? I do not.

[jimster]

Why are we all conveniently forgetting the deep pass to Moss that Campbell missed in the second half of the Giants game? Hello??? Moss had a step on his guy, and Jason overthrew him. That was attacking. Stop exaggerating people.

That's true, but the difference is against the Giants we were throwing when we had to, where that one in the Egles game we were trying to put the game away. Something we should have been doing a lot sooner against the Giants.

[GibbsWon3ForAReason]

Joe Gibbs and Al Saunders knew, or should have known, that that are fundamental differences in their schemes. These differences should have been worked out before Al came on board.

Joe and Al knew, or should have known, that Mark Brunell did not fit Al's scheme and could not run it as Trent Green did in Kansas City.

Joe and Al knew, or should have known, that Clinton Portis does not have the skills as a receiver needed to function in Al's system like a Priest Holmes.

Joe and Al surely realize by now that Jason Campbell does not have the accuracy of a Trent Green and it's highly unlikely that he will ever be able to run the Saunders scheme as Trent did.

Their task now is work with what they have, to adapt a scheme to the strengths and weaknesses of their current players.

What we are seeing is nothing like the Gibbs offense of the 80s or the Al Saunders offense in his Kansas City days.

All great points.

I still have confidence that Gibbs and Saunders can adapt and figure out a scheme to be successful. I think as the season goes on and Campbell gains more game experience and confidence, we will see more points and better overall offensive production. Or at least, I hope so.

[deejaydana]

Al Squanders?

[mistertim]

Joe and Al surely realize by now that Jason Campbell does not have the accuracy of a Trent Green and it's highly unlikely that he will ever be able to run the Saunders scheme as Trent did.

It is amazing to me that people are saying this after only his 3rd game as the full time starter. :laugh:

[Enzo]

There is one more important thing that if we start attacking with the passing game down field & are successfull, it will also open up the running game for Portis & Bettes. Also I don't understand why the Redskins keep putting in the "jumbo package" on short yardage plays like they still have John Riggins. They need to spread the field so that there will be less bodies for the backs to navigate through. :mad:

[SkinsFTW]

Saunders success in Kansas City was by primarily throwing the ball to Holmes and Gonzalez. Holmes was a major part of their passing attack.

Do you think we can win with Portis/Betts being a major part of our passing game? I do not.

The big problem probably isn't that Betts/Portis can't catch (even though Portis did drop passes in the game). The real problem if Saunders is trying to run the same TE/RB offense is that our OL isn't that good and the NFCE defenses are better against the run and short game.

Every one of these defenses are bad deep, good up front against the run. Maybe the Eagles are the exception deep but with their injuries they fall into the same category.

Then factor in Campbell being less accurate right now and the offense just isn't working.

It's true though, in KC his #1 receiver usually had 55-60 receptions. Not really the deep offense people are talking about. Gibbs old offense was more deep passing. RB's never dominated receiving and 3 WR's always had good numbers.

Maybe the real problem is that both of these guys are on the conservative side now.

[GibbsWon3ForAReason]

Maybe the real problem is that both of these guys are on the conservative side now.

Do you think Gibbs and Saunders are conservative because they are scared to take chances or because they are slowly trying to bring along our talented, young QB?

[SkinsFTW]

Do you think Gibbs and Saunders are conservative because they are scared to take chances or because they are slowly trying to bring along our talented, young QB?

Not sure. They were calling the same game with Brunell in there 04-06 it seems.

Ramsey got the hook in 05 after 1 bad half, maybe he wasn't "safe" enough for the new Gibbs. I know he didn't play any worse than Schroeder or Rypien did early on last time. Those guys were INT machines.

Maybe this is just what the offense is going to be now. But maybe it's just because of Campbell's inexperience. It could take them until the middle of next year to start opening it up if that's the case but our OL isn't good enough to play marty ball.

We could be looking at a lot more 17-20 point games unless something changes in the plan.

[Oldfan]

Do you think Gibbs and Saunders are conservative because they are scared to take chances or because they are slowly trying to bring along our talented, young QB?

Over the last 20 years, I have been starting out most of my comments on the skins with "I hope I'm wrong but..."

I hope I'm wrong but I don't think Jason's struggles with accuracy on short to medium routes is fixable. I base that on errant throws, about three per game, when he isn't under pressure. If he was consistently high, I wouldn't worry about it. But that's not the case.

My theory is that the mechanics which give him excellent touch on the deep throws and fades, work against him on the shorter throws.

Jason is in his third year and has started ten games. I don't think Gibbs and Saunders are bringing him along slowly because they choose to. I think they're adapting their offense to the limitations of his game.

As I said, I hope I'm wrong.

[redskins59]

Over the last 20 years, I have been starting out most of my comments on the skins with "I hope I'm wrong but..."

I hope I'm wrong but I don't think Jason's struggles with accuracy on short to medium routes is fixable. I base that on errant throws, about three per game, when he isn't under pressure. If he was consistently high, I wouldn't worry about it. But that's not the case.

My theory is that the mechanics which give him excellent touch on the deep throws and fades, work against him on the shorter throws.

Jason is in his third year and has started ten games. I don't think Gibbs and Saunders are bringing him along slowly because they choose to. I think they're adapting their offense to the limitations of his game.

As I said, I hope I'm wrong.

I need to agree with that. Jason hasn't been very accurate. Who knows, maybe he's just a little nervous. If his completion % hovers around 50% after this season is over, it's time to look for a different quarterback.

[SkinsFTW]

It appears that way but then how did he complete 70% of his passes college?

Thats why I think it probably has to do some with them changing his motion and drops from his 15 yard drops last year, lol.

[Forever21]

Thanks for the post, I totally agree with the comments...I can't wait until the old dude's time is up here in Washington.

Wow how about showing a little respect.

If you don't agree with Gibbs' coaching or philosophy or whatever then fine but calling him 'the old dude' or other nonsense will forever leave your posts meaningless because you're clearly clueless and an idiot.

[Oldfan]

It appears that way but then how did he complete 70% of his passes college?

Thats why I think it probably has to do some with them changing his motion and drops from his 15 yard drops last year, lol.

The accuracy issue was evident last year, so the offseason work on his mechanics probably isn't to blame.

College stats can be deceiving. On a telecast of an Auburn game in 2005, one of Auburn's coaches was quoted comparing Jason to his replacement. He thought Jason was the better athlete, but his replacement was the more accurate passer.

Naturally, it didn't thrill me to hear that we might have given up multiple picks for Auburn's second most accurate passer.

[taylorcoreskin]

The accuracy issue was evident last year, so the offseason work on his mechanics probably isn't to blame.

College stats can be deceiving. On a telecast of an Auburn game in 2005, one of Auburn's coaches was quoted comparing Jason to his replacement. He thought Jason was the better athlete, but his replacement was the more accurate passer.

Naturally, it didn't thrill me to hear that we might have given up multiple picks for Auburn's second most accurate passer.

I hadn't known that. I wouldn't have been very thrilled about drafting Jason in the first round either.