Why all the complaining?

Dude, you refuted your own argument. Injuries are not injuries. The Skins have lost two starting offensive linemen for the year and then Wade got hurt last week and was playing with an injured groin this week. Rabach went down last week and didn't play. Pete Kendall is apparently dealing with a hamstring problem and played at less than 100%. So the Skins played with two of the five guys they started the year with and two of the five that did play were playing hurt. If you lose a d-lineman, an RB, and a safety that hurts (but not to the Pats) but if you lose freaking three offensive linemen that f's up your whole offense. Show me another team playing with a patchwork line like the Skins? Oh yeah, the 0-7 Rams and the Ravens. Either of those offenses doing anything at all? The o-line makes the whole thing go man and you lose all those players and it changes everything on offense.

Finally! Someone who gets it! Good post! :thumb:

Ok. So, I'm hearing people complain about Al Saunders. Fine. You guys were the ones who said we needed an offensive coordinator other than Joe Gibbs. What difference has it made? At least we made the playoffs under Gibbs' offense. And, that was an offense with Mark Brunell at quarterback, and with one goto receiver in Santana Moss.

So, knowing those facts, if we have all the offensive weapons now that we didn't have in '05, why wouldn't Joe Gibbs' offense work now? Don't get me wrong, until our record falls under .500 and we miss the playoffs again, I will continue to support this team and the coaches. But, I do believe the FO has done just about everything that the fans have asked them to do, and the fans still don't like it.

I never said that. I applauded the move, and I thought it was a good sign of Gibbs' willingness to change. But no, I was not one to say that Gibbs was over it and should hand the playcalling duties to someone else.

I've been a defender of the coaches from the beginning. Not once, even through the nightmare of the 2006 season did I call for any of the coaches to get canned. Even if we struggle with a mundane offense and finish with a record of around 8-8, I'd still say that Saunders deserves at least one more year to fully implement his offensive plan along with the further development of Campbell.

But at the same time, I don't think it would be unfair to say that this offense isn't anywhere near what Al Saunders really wants.

While Saunders calls the plays, Gibbs sets the game plan and he and Campbell basically said in the postgame that they had a conservative gameplan. Gibbs even said, 'We probably could have taken a few more shots out there, but we were happy with what we were doing.'

And that's what I find troubling ...

Ok. So, I'm hearing people complain about Al Saunders. Fine. You guys were the ones who said we needed an offensive coordinator other than Joe Gibbs. What difference has it made? At least we made the playoffs under Gibbs' offense. And, that was an offense with Mark Brunell at quarterback, and with one goto receiver in Santana Moss.

So, knowing those facts, if we have all the offensive weapons now that we didn't have in '05, why wouldn't Joe Gibbs' offense work now? Don't get me wrong, until our record falls under .500 and we miss the playoffs again, I will continue to support this team and the coaches. But, I do believe the FO has done just about everything that the fans have asked them to do, and the fans still don't like it.What I saw today was a lot more Joe Gibbs conservatism in the game plan than the Al Saunders offenses that I remember from STL and KC. I'm fine with conservatism if it's working. It was a beautiful thing when Portis bludgeoned teams down the stretch of '05, but we are not seeing the kind of production with that approach for THIS team. If conservatism is not working, I'd like to see more of a Saunders-styled game plan, that often used the passing game to set up subsequent running success in his previous stops. This would have been a 14 point win with any second half production from the offense.

I never said that. I applauded the move, and I thought it was a good sign of Gibbs' willingness to change. But no, I was not one to say that Gibbs was over it and should hand the playcalling duties to someone else.


My statement was a general statement toward a high majority of Redskins fans who kept crying in '05 for a new OC. But, I would assume if one applauded the move, then one supported it. I, personally, felt it was the wrong move. We made the playoffs under Joe Gibbs' offense with less weapons and a quarterback who most complained couldn't pass deep. We obviously have more offensive weapons now, so it seems to me it would've made more sense to have gotten the guys we had gotten (minus Brandon Lloyd,) and kept the same offense that took us deep into the playoffs the year before.

But, I did (and still do) go along with it, because Gibbs did state that Saunders was brought in to enhance the existing offense, but not to completely go away from it. So again, I ask, if we haven't went away from the offense we had purely with Gibbs, we should've just kept Gibbs offense in and focused on that.

My statement was a general statement toward a high majority of Redskins fans who kept crying in '05 for a new OC. But, I would assume if one applauded the move, then one supported it. I, personally, felt it was the wrong move. We made the playoffs under Joe Gibbs' offense with less weapons and a quarterback who most complained couldn't pass deep. We obviously have more offensive weapons now, so it seems to me it would've made more sense to have gotten the guys we had gotten (minus Brandon Lloyd,) and kept the same offense that took us deep into the playoffs the year before.

But, I did (and still do) go along with it, because Gibbs did state that Saunders was brought in to enhance the existing offense, but not to completely go away from it. So again, I ask, if we haven't went away from the offense we had purely with Gibbs, we should've just kept Gibbs offense in and focused on that.

Yes, one can support the decision that was made, even if one wasn't originally calling for it.

What I saw today was a lot more Joe Gibbs conservatism in the game plan than the Al Saunders offenses that I remember from STL and KC. I'm fine with conservatism if it's working. It was a beautiful thing when Portis bludgeoned teams down the stretch of '05, but we are not seeing the kind of production with that approach for THIS team. If conservatism is not working, I'd like to see more of a Saunders-styled game plan, that often used the passing game to set up subsequent running success in his previous stops. This would have been a 14 point win with any second half production from the offense.

And again, you have to ask, why were we playing conservative. Our freakin' offensive line. Why did Joe Gibbs' offense work in '05? Because we had our offensive line intact. It's that simple.

And again, you have to ask, why were we playing conservative. Our freakin' offensive line. Why did Joe Gibbs' offense work in '05? Because we had our offensive line intact. It's that simple.

During that 5-game stretch, we also saw intensity and determination that hasn't been matched before or since.

There's been a lot of half-assing it if you ask me.

During that 5-game stretch, we also saw intensity and determination that hasn't been matched before or since.

There's been a lot of half-assing it if you ask me.

And those players need to do a better job.

Bottom line, patch work O-LINE......yea, bad day at the office.

The D stepped it UP! We WON THE DAMN game! THE END.......4-2, beats the hell outta 3-3 PERIOD! We have given both losses away on a golden platter. We got a little gift here from no rackers! It should have NEVER COME down to that anyway!

TAKE IT AND BE HAPPY!