Fassel meets with Redskins over coaching vacancies

Well if we did change the O then people would have more excuses for JC next year.

I am so sick of starting over every 3-4 yrs. I mean really, this is getting fucking ridiculous.

Getting rid of Saunders means you pretty much render Todd Collins useless. He'd be a horrible QB in any system not reliant on timing, because his arm is a friggin noodle. The only reason he's successful is because he throws to spots before the WR breaks. If he's in an offense where he's got to throw during the break, or even after it, passes will get knocked down by DBs.

And if you render Collins useless, then we have no plan for backup QB. Brunell's contract is voiding, he'll be gone. If you don't have Saunders, you have no use for Collins. So then what? You have a young QB adjusting to a new OC, and a brand new backup coming in who's got to learn it as well. You have no master of the offense anywhere on your roster.

It just reeks. Stick with Saunders. Changing the OC is the worst thing we can do.

What's funny is the title of the article says "coaching vacancies" yet there is officially only one vacancy on the Redskins staff at the moment.

And just from a philosophical point of view, if you're Dan Snyder and you're thinking of getting rid of Saunders, aren't you essentially saying you're not happy with the offense that's getting built here, by JOE GIBBS?

Getting rid of that which Gibbs put in place isn't exactly a ringing endoresment of the guy you brought back to save your franchise.

Besides, show me a time when Jim Fassel has ever had an offense as potent as the one Saunders had in KC. I mean seriously.

Sorry, I'm just getting very upset at the notion that we might gut our offense.

And just from a philosophical point of view, if you're Dan Snyder and you're thinking of getting rid of Saunders, aren't you essentially saying you're not happy with the offense that's getting built here, by JOE GIBBS?

Getting rid of that which Gibbs put in place isn't exactly a ringing endoresment of the guy you brought back to save your franchise.

Besides, show me a time when Jim Fassel has ever had an offense as potent as the one Saunders had in KC. I mean seriously.

Sorry, I'm just getting very upset at the notion that we might gut our offense.

Yeah but maybe we should consider just how happy Gibbs was with Saunders' offense.

Even before Gibbs stepped down there were rumors that Saunders could have been on the hotseat this offseason.

And just from a philosophical point of view, if you're Dan Snyder and you're thinking of getting rid of Saunders, aren't you essentially saying you're not happy with the offense that's getting built here, by JOE GIBBS?

Getting rid of that which Gibbs put in place isn't exactly a ringing endoresment of the guy you brought back to save your franchise.

Besides, show me a time when Jim Fassel has ever had an offense as potent as the one Saunders had in KC. I mean seriously.

Sorry, I'm just getting very upset at the notion that we might gut our offense.
Well some might say you had to go back to AS O in KC and not here. Don't get to worked up becasue we really know nothing at this point other than the coaches he has interviewed.

What's funny is the title of the article says "coaching vacancies" yet there is officially only one vacancy on the Redskins staff at the moment.

Don't you think it's likely that if we bring in someone from outside the organization that we're going to see alot of turnover on the staff? I can't see anyone coming in and looking around, going, "yep, looks good. Let's git 'er done."

I still think ultimately Williams will be the choice, and I know if he is he'd like to make Schwartz his top assistant. On the offensive side of the ball, not sure what they're aiming for. But I get a feeling we could see some West Coast offense

Isn't that the offense double G ran in Buffalo? Also, Campbell is familiar with this offense so hopefully the learning curve wouldn't be that big.

Don't you think it's likely that if we bring in someone from outside the organization that we're going to see alot of turnover on the staff? I can't see anyone coming in and looking around, going, "yep, looks good. Let's git 'er done."

Well I think whoever comes on board (internal or external) needs to take a hard look at that offense and ask "What do half of these guys do here anyway"

Addition by subtraction, as they say.