DaveMason Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Hey, I'll blame Gibbs as much as anybody. He's the head coach--he's the one in charge. If things go wrong, it's his fault. Saunders sucks, but Gibbs is the one who wanted to hire him. So I blame Gibbs for hiring a sucky overrated offensive coach. I just disagree with people who think that Saunders is this genius who masterminded the great show on turf, and now Gibbs is INTENTIONALLY making him suck. The theory is ridiculous. And our offense in 2005 was pretty decent. Why the regression once Saunders came in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveMason Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Hey, I'll blame Gibbs as much as anybody. He's the head coach--he's the one in charge. If things go wrong, it's his fault. Saunders sucks, but Gibbs is the one who wanted to hire him. So I blame Gibbs for hiring a sucky overrated offensive coach. I just disagree with people who think that Saunders is this genius who masterminded the great show on turf, and now Gibbs is INTENTIONALLY making him suck. The theory is ridiculous. And our offense in 2005 was pretty decent. Why the regression once Saunders came in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 No, I don't blame Saunders. Gibbs brought him to town on the heels of a 10-6 season in which Portis had 1,500 yards rushing and Moss had 1,450 yards receiving. Did this team NEED an offensive change in philosophy at that time? That is the real question. My gut feeling is that right now there are too many cooks in the kitchen. Before Saunders arrived Portis was the #1 back and go-to player, now we don't know who is THE guy. The Redskins ran Betts TWICE against the Giants on plays that determined the game. I don't know that any other coach in the NFL would have run a player of Betts' stature both times without giving Portis a chance or putting the ball in Jason Campbell's hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 No, I don't blame Saunders. Gibbs brought him to town on the heels of a 10-6 season in which Portis had 1,500 yards rushing and Moss had 1,450 yards receiving. Did this team NEED an offensive change in philosophy at that time? That is the real question. My gut feeling is that right now there are too many cooks in the kitchen. Before Saunders arrived Portis was the #1 back and go-to player, now we don't know who is THE guy. The Redskins ran Betts TWICE against the Giants on plays that determined the game. I don't know that any other coach in the NFL would have run a player of Betts' stature both times without giving Portis a chance or putting the ball in Jason Campbell's hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 The offense had all the same problems BEFORE Saunders got here. Case closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 The offense had all the same problems BEFORE Saunders got here. Case closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mi6 Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 The Offensive philosophy of Gibbs is out dated. Gone are the days, where a team only relied on a power running game. These days, the most potent offensives are pass happy, and that is something Gibbs hasn't or has yet to come to grips with. Take the Colts, Patriots, and until Donovan was injured the Eagles. They all have spread offenses that make it difficult for defenses to go toe to toe with them for 60 minutes. When the defense gives an inch, these offenses take a mile. And, once they have the lead they go for the jagular! Gibbs on the other hand tries to run out the clock, and it has costed us games this season and in the past as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mi6 Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 The Offensive philosophy of Gibbs is out dated. Gone are the days, where a team only relied on a power running game. These days, the most potent offensives are pass happy, and that is something Gibbs hasn't or has yet to come to grips with. Take the Colts, Patriots, and until Donovan was injured the Eagles. They all have spread offenses that make it difficult for defenses to go toe to toe with them for 60 minutes. When the defense gives an inch, these offenses take a mile. And, once they have the lead they go for the jagular! Gibbs on the other hand tries to run out the clock, and it has costed us games this season and in the past as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyriggins Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 the coaches, qb, rbs,wrs, are all under performing plus the Offensive line has been hit by ALOT of injuries! Campbell is young so maybe he isn't underperforming, but his play is below average compared to most other quarterbacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyriggins Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 the coaches, qb, rbs,wrs, are all under performing plus the Offensive line has been hit by ALOT of injuries! Campbell is young so maybe he isn't underperforming, but his play is below average compared to most other quarterbacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UltimateSkins Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Did you not see the numbers Trent Green and Priest Holmes put up in KC under Saunders' offense? The difference is the o-line. Our's is pretty weak right now while he had 2 future hall of famers in KC in Shields and Roaf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UltimateSkins Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Did you not see the numbers Trent Green and Priest Holmes put up in KC under Saunders' offense? The difference is the o-line. Our's is pretty weak right now while he had 2 future hall of famers in KC in Shields and Roaf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 The Offensive philosophy of Gibbs is out dated. Gone are the days, where a team only relied on a power running game. Bill Cowher,Jerome Bettis and Willie Parker say hello. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 The Offensive philosophy of Gibbs is out dated. Gone are the days, where a team only relied on a power running game. Bill Cowher,Jerome Bettis and Willie Parker say hello. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siven Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Hey, I'll blame Gibbs as much as anybody. He's the head coach--he's the one in charge. If things go wrong, it's his fault. Saunders sucks, but Gibbs is the one who wanted to hire him. So I blame Gibbs for hiring a sucky overrated offensive coach.I just disagree with people who think that Saunders is this genius who masterminded the great show on turf, and now Gibbs is INTENTIONALLY making him suck. The theory is ridiculous. And our offense in 2005 was pretty decent. Why the regression once Saunders came in? Our offense was vastly inflated by a few blowout games against crapass teams. We had zero injuries on offense or defense. Thats a big reason of why we made the playoffs The regression? Gibbs is interfering with Saunders. Saunders offense takes 1-2 years to master. In the second year, nearly every player on offense is injured or limited in some way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siven Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Hey, I'll blame Gibbs as much as anybody. He's the head coach--he's the one in charge. If things go wrong, it's his fault. Saunders sucks, but Gibbs is the one who wanted to hire him. So I blame Gibbs for hiring a sucky overrated offensive coach.I just disagree with people who think that Saunders is this genius who masterminded the great show on turf, and now Gibbs is INTENTIONALLY making him suck. The theory is ridiculous. And our offense in 2005 was pretty decent. Why the regression once Saunders came in? Our offense was vastly inflated by a few blowout games against crapass teams. We had zero injuries on offense or defense. Thats a big reason of why we made the playoffs The regression? Gibbs is interfering with Saunders. Saunders offense takes 1-2 years to master. In the second year, nearly every player on offense is injured or limited in some way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Two things before I pull my hair out at all the idiocy: 1) It is SAUNDERS who made it so that our running backs had huge holes last year (once the offense got its feet under them.) It's why Betts had over 1,000 yards. Like ANY offense, they DO need healthy and quality offensive linemen but it's clear what Saunders brought in the running game. 2) Though Saunders may have some flaws (which KC fans might be able to tell us about,) overall production is NOT ONE OF THEM. What you see here is a product of poor QB play (Brunell) or inexperience (Campbell) or injury (uh, nearly our entire O-line.) He was able to have offenses that featured no receivers of any great height or weight (outside of TE, of course) and they were always near the top. The people critical of Saunders are, almost without exception, way too attached to 2005, when they mistakenly believe that somehow Gibbs had found his stride. He didn't. OUr offense stank when it counted most, partly due to injury (running Portis into the ground because the passing offense stank) but mostly due to Gibbs' choices in personnel or playcalling. We were an Antonio Brown return TD away from blowing 2005 too. We won 5 games in a row over mostly very inferior opponents, some without their starting QB (Philly, StL, I can't remember if Arizona was one also.) Yes, we killed Dallas but that was because the defense put the offense in GREAT positions and it was a rivalry game for which the team was pumped up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Two things before I pull my hair out at all the idiocy: 1) It is SAUNDERS who made it so that our running backs had huge holes last year (once the offense got its feet under them.) It's why Betts had over 1,000 yards. Like ANY offense, they DO need healthy and quality offensive linemen but it's clear what Saunders brought in the running game. 2) Though Saunders may have some flaws (which KC fans might be able to tell us about,) overall production is NOT ONE OF THEM. What you see here is a product of poor QB play (Brunell) or inexperience (Campbell) or injury (uh, nearly our entire O-line.) He was able to have offenses that featured no receivers of any great height or weight (outside of TE, of course) and they were always near the top. The people critical of Saunders are, almost without exception, way too attached to 2005, when they mistakenly believe that somehow Gibbs had found his stride. He didn't. OUr offense stank when it counted most, partly due to injury (running Portis into the ground because the passing offense stank) but mostly due to Gibbs' choices in personnel or playcalling. We were an Antonio Brown return TD away from blowing 2005 too. We won 5 games in a row over mostly very inferior opponents, some without their starting QB (Philly, StL, I can't remember if Arizona was one also.) Yes, we killed Dallas but that was because the defense put the offense in GREAT positions and it was a rivalry game for which the team was pumped up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 EDIT: Don't want to do multiple posts. Will add this to my last post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 EDIT: Don't want to do multiple posts. Will add this to my last post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Bill Cowher,Jerome Bettis and Willie Parker say hello. Hines Ward, ARE and (before the SB year) Plaxico Burress wanted to say hello. They said they also played during those years. And this year's Steelers are not a power running team. Look at the stats Big Ben is putting up. The offense had all the same problems BEFORE Saunders got here.Case closed. Seriously, I don't know why I'm feeling so angry with these posters but I guess I hate to see an innocent party (PROVEN in his field) taking hits from people who are either eager for a scapegoat or answer a call to prayer at their Joe Gibbs Temple 5 times a day. It's like they have no clue about football, logic (the point you just made being an example of using logic) or about WHAT HAS BEEN SAID BY PLAYERS AND COACHES THEMSELVES. Gibbs has said he's had more than just minor input once they build a lead. I think THIS year we have had some player failures and injuries but we've also seen a real change in how things are called and what Jason's primary options become later in the game. I actually think it's been a negative for Jason to watch Brunell and listen to Gibbs for so long. I sometimes see him terrified of the mistake and checking down when there MAY BE an option downfield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Bill Cowher,Jerome Bettis and Willie Parker say hello. Hines Ward, ARE and (before the SB year) Plaxico Burress wanted to say hello. They said they also played during those years. And this year's Steelers are not a power running team. Look at the stats Big Ben is putting up. The offense had all the same problems BEFORE Saunders got here.Case closed. Seriously, I don't know why I'm feeling so angry with these posters but I guess I hate to see an innocent party (PROVEN in his field) taking hits from people who are either eager for a scapegoat or answer a call to prayer at their Joe Gibbs Temple 5 times a day. It's like they have no clue about football, logic (the point you just made being an example of using logic) or about WHAT HAS BEEN SAID BY PLAYERS AND COACHES THEMSELVES. Gibbs has said he's had more than just minor input once they build a lead. I think THIS year we have had some player failures and injuries but we've also seen a real change in how things are called and what Jason's primary options become later in the game. I actually think it's been a negative for Jason to watch Brunell and listen to Gibbs for so long. I sometimes see him terrified of the mistake and checking down when there MAY BE an option downfield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSHRedskins3ATLBraves3 Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 1. We lost to NY because we could not run it in from the 1 with 3 tries. Saunders play calling got us to the 1.2. We fumbled the ball twice late in the game against Green Bay. If my memory serves me correctly Saunders was not on the field for any of those plays. 3. We are 4-2 and are lucky to be that. 4. We are not a great team. We are a team learning how to win. People need to be realistic about that. 5. We do not have a team leader on the offensive side of the ball. 6. We do not have that rock solid guy that gets it done week in and week out. 7. Where is our leader on the field who ups the level of everyone around them? 1. Al Saunders's play calling is the reason it came down to three tries from the one. If he'd called a better game during the whole second half we wouldn't have ever had to rush down the field and score to win the game. We would have been in the victory formaiton. 2. That's two possessions lost, if memory serves we had more than two possessions in the second half. If he had called a better second half then we would have at least had 3 points in the second half and we would have gone into OT. 3. We are lucky to be 4-2, but we're also unlucky not to be 6-0, so it's not much of an argument. We could easily be 6-0 and we have to live with it. 4. We'd be a pretty darn good team if Al Saunders would be more aggressive or Coach Gibbs took over the play calling. 5. Really? CP has 5 TD's despite being banged up AND having the whole right side of the offensive line decimated. 6. Again, CP is the man. Yards aren't a factor because it's VERY difficult to gain yards on the ground when there's not much of a threat to go deep (because of play calling) and the right side of the offensive line can't open up holes for you. 7. My advice to you is to watch the entire 2005 season again and see CP carry us into the playoffs. The tools are there. Al Saunders doesn't know how to use them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSHRedskins3ATLBraves3 Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 1. We lost to NY because we could not run it in from the 1 with 3 tries. Saunders play calling got us to the 1.2. We fumbled the ball twice late in the game against Green Bay. If my memory serves me correctly Saunders was not on the field for any of those plays. 3. We are 4-2 and are lucky to be that. 4. We are not a great team. We are a team learning how to win. People need to be realistic about that. 5. We do not have a team leader on the offensive side of the ball. 6. We do not have that rock solid guy that gets it done week in and week out. 7. Where is our leader on the field who ups the level of everyone around them? 1. Al Saunders's play calling is the reason it came down to three tries from the one. If he'd called a better game during the whole second half we wouldn't have ever had to rush down the field and score to win the game. We would have been in the victory formaiton. 2. That's two possessions lost, if memory serves we had more than two possessions in the second half. If he had called a better second half then we would have at least had 3 points in the second half and we would have gone into OT. 3. We are lucky to be 4-2, but we're also unlucky not to be 6-0, so it's not much of an argument. We could easily be 6-0 and we have to live with it. 4. We'd be a pretty darn good team if Al Saunders would be more aggressive or Coach Gibbs took over the play calling. 5. Really? CP has 5 TD's despite being banged up AND having the whole right side of the offensive line decimated. 6. Again, CP is the man. Yards aren't a factor because it's VERY difficult to gain yards on the ground when there's not much of a threat to go deep (because of play calling) and the right side of the offensive line can't open up holes for you. 7. My advice to you is to watch the entire 2005 season again and see CP carry us into the playoffs. The tools are there. Al Saunders doesn't know how to use them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSHRedskins3ATLBraves3 Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Was that a joke? Seriously, I really don't understand. Read the post above this one and allow me to enlighten you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.