PDA

View Full Version : Would accept a "tough" version of DV for HC?


Frankie
12-31-2005, 12:12 AM
No matter who it is?

This is actually something I am very curious about. If you were convinced that a certain candidate would rank with DV as a teacher of Football but was a tougher coach would you welcome his hiring? I'm leading to the next (hypothetical) question with this. What if his name was Al Saunders? I'm just curious to see if Saunders bashers on this BB somehow would get a revelation that he is the same as DV in knowledge and teaching, but practiced more discipline as a coach would they change their position? If yes, why? If no, why?
:hmmm:

htismaqe
12-31-2005, 05:20 AM
Moot.

Saunders is headed to Detroit.

Tuckdaddy
12-31-2005, 07:47 AM
With a good QB and the WR's they have it could be a deadly combo.

htismaqe
12-31-2005, 08:31 AM
By the way, I don't think Saunders is this hypothetical "more disciplined" DV you're talking about.

DV said a few times during the last 5 years that he had to tone down Saunders aggressiveness, that sometimes his playcalls were semi-reckless.

Sounds like Mike Martz to me.

HC_Chief
12-31-2005, 09:45 AM
Moot.

Saunders is headed to Detroit.

Good.

jspchief
12-31-2005, 09:53 AM
Depends on how many more times Saunders would choose a toy like Kris Wilson while ignoring weakness on D and age in other offensive positions.

HC_Chief
12-31-2005, 09:55 AM
The fact that AS is enamoured with the passing game when the personnel dictates power football makes me want to kcik his ass straight out of town.

Mr. Laz
12-31-2005, 09:58 AM
The fact that AS is enamoured with the passing game

link?

jspchief
12-31-2005, 10:16 AM
link?You're joking, right?

I've seen 4+ years of Saunders going away from the run game at halftime in spite of successful running.

I've seen countless games where we held a late lead, and Saunders chose to pass three times in a row instead of burning clock.

I've seen Saunders try to pass on first and goal inside the ten, inspite of the best redzone RB in the league running behind the best o-line in the league.

IMO, Saunders has a clear history of being too eager to throw rather than run. We're just lucky that our running game is so effective that he isn't tempted to abandon it more often.

dirk digler
12-31-2005, 10:20 AM
You're joking, right?

I've seen 4+ years of Saunders going away from the run game at halftime in spite of successful running.

I've seen countless games where we held a late lead, and Saunders chose to pass three times in a row instead of burning clock.

I've seen Saunders try to pass on first and goal inside the ten, inspite of the best redzone RB in the league running behind the best o-line in the league.

IMO, Saunders has a clear history of being too eager to throw rather than run. We're just lucky that our running game is so effective that he isn't tempted to abandon it more often.

Yep

We have been very lucky to have 2 great, ego-driven RB's to keep AS in line

redbrian
12-31-2005, 11:24 AM
You're joking, right?

I've seen 4+ years of Saunders going away from the run game at halftime in spite of successful running.

I've seen countless games where we held a late lead, and Saunders chose to pass three times in a row instead of burning clock.

I've seen Saunders try to pass on first and goal inside the ten, inspite of the best redzone RB in the league running behind the best o-line in the league.

IMO, Saunders has a clear history of being too eager to throw rather than run. We're just lucky that our running game is so effective that he isn't tempted to abandon it more often.

Got to throw the BS flag on this one.

Al runs a balanced attack, go back and find a game where the pass is used over 70% of the plays (they will be far and few between).

Most games it's closer to 50/50 which is what Al's scheme is about.

jspchief
12-31-2005, 11:27 AM
Got to throw the BS flag on this one.

Al runs a balanced attack, go back and find a game where the pass is used over 70% of the plays (they will be far and few between).

Most games it's closer to 50/50 which is what Al's scheme is about.I never claimed he wasn't balanced. I claimed he's too enamored with the pass.

In other words, too often he chooses to pass when he should be running.

I don't give a rat's ass about balance. Balance for the sake of balance is silly. With the way we run the ball, there are games where we could run 75% of the time and slaughter opponents.

HC_Chief
12-31-2005, 11:35 AM
Balance for the sake of balance is silly. With the way we run the ball, there are games where we could run 75% of the time and slaughter opponents.

B I N G O

Mr. Kotter
12-31-2005, 11:51 AM
With a good QB and the WR's they have it could be a deadly combo.

The better get an O-Line.....quick.

Mr. Kotter
12-31-2005, 11:57 AM
Got to throw the BS flag on this one.

Al runs a balanced attack, go back and find a game where the pass is used over 70% of the plays (they will be far and few between).

Most games it's closer to 50/50 which is what Al's scheme is about.

I'm a supporter of giving Saunders a shot here....and would still welcome it, if Detroit turns out to be BS.

However, if not for Priest and Larry, we'd have thrown the ball more with Saunders, despite WR being a chronic position of "need." Saunders did throw the ball too much--and at odd times---for my liking, given the dominance of our running game.

I'm convinced we lost more than a few key games because we couldn't control the clock; because Saunders was passing, when we should have been rushing.

I understand the importance of balance, and mixing it up. But there's an old coaching cliche' that Saunders better learn: "If it's working, MAKE them stop you....(before you get cute...)"

Frankie
12-31-2005, 05:09 PM
The point of this thread is despite Saunders' alleged Detroit destination. I'm asking the Saunders bashers this question because I think they consider him an extention of DV therefore "anything wrong about DV is wrong about AS." I want to know what it would take for Saunders to be your welcome next KC HC.

jspchief
12-31-2005, 05:12 PM
The point of this thread is despite Saunders' alleged Detroit destination. I'm asking the Saunders bashers this question because I think they consider him an extention of DV therefore "anything wrong about DV is wrong about AS." I want to know what it would take for Saunders to be your welcome next KC HC.I'd take Saunders on a two year contract. Nothing longer. I can live with giving him two years to keep the ship afloat, but I don't want him beyond that when we need to reload.

Deberg_1990
12-31-2005, 05:15 PM
The fact that AS is enamoured with the passing game when the personnel dictates power football makes me want to kcik his ass straight out of town.

How can you say that when LJ has been averaging 30+ carries a game?? I think for the most part, Saunders game plans have been fairly well balanced.

htismaqe
12-31-2005, 05:34 PM
The point of this thread is despite Saunders' alleged Detroit destination. I'm asking the Saunders bashers this question because I think they consider him an extention of DV therefore "anything wrong about DV is wrong about AS." I want to know what it would take for Saunders to be your welcome next KC HC.

Honestly, I don't look at this objectively. I've said as much.

There's nothing that would make me be real happy having Saunders as HC. Regardless of how he did with his side of the ball, this team has been a failure.

When I clean house, I throw the garbage outside. I don't sweep it under the fridge and hope I never see it again.

Frankie
12-31-2005, 05:50 PM
I'd take Saunders on a two year contract. Nothing longer. I can live with giving him two years to keep the ship afloat, but I don't want him beyond that when we need to reload.Fair enough. What if in two years he has taken us to or to the verge of SuperBowl. Would you extend his contract then if it was up to you?

I'm just trying to get a tangible feel of the typical anti-Saunders poster. Whether he/she wants no part of the current regime or he/she has formed a super-negative view of AS personally.

jspchief
12-31-2005, 09:32 PM
Fair enough. What if in two years he has taken us to or to the verge of SuperBowl. Would you extend his contract then if it was up to you?

I'm just trying to get a tangible feel of the typical anti-Saunders poster. Whether he/she wants no part of the current regime or he/she has formed a super-negative view of AS personally.I don't want Saunders in charge of building the next Chiefs team. I could probably live with him as a last ditch effort to get the most out of this current team, but that's only because I don't feel there any any good candidates this year.

I would say it's partly just wanting to flush the current regime, and partly a dislike of Saunders himself.

Deberg_1990
12-31-2005, 09:37 PM
Saunders wouldnt be bad, i dont think he would be very good either. It would be a repeat of the Gunther Cunningham era...Hello 8-8 or 9-7!

Guru
12-31-2005, 09:40 PM
I never claimed he wasn't balanced. I claimed he's too enamored with the pass.

In other words, too often he chooses to pass when he should be running.

I don't give a rat's ass about balance. Balance for the sake of balance is silly. With the way we run the ball, there are games where we could run 75% of the time and slaughter opponents.

Revisiting Atlanta.:clap::clap::clap:

Logical
12-31-2005, 09:45 PM
I truly believe this team needs to be torn down and built up with younger players looking for the long term. Saunders is not suited to that job due to his age and past record in San Diego. I fear he would try to make due with the current team which will never be championship material IMO. They are just too soft.