PDA

View Full Version : Peter King praises Al Saunders


KCChiefsFan88
01-23-2006, 09:02 AM
In his latest column. This is why I don't get all the criticism of Al Saunders lately. Sure you can say that maybe he doesn't have the rah rah personality of a Herm Edwards, but you can't argue with the ON FIELD evidence that was produced by Al Saunders' coordinated offenses during his 5 seasons as OC in KC.


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/peter_king/01/23/mmqb.championship/index.html


Dick Vermeil left every facet of the offense to Saunders, and Saunders was so controlling that he never would call the same play over a four-game span. His theory was that if teams studied the Chiefs, he didn't want them ever to see anything predictable in the four previous games Kansas City played. "I think that's taking it a bit too far,'' Vermeil told me last year, "but you can't argue with Al's success. It works. He's done a fantastic job. And the fact is, teams do have trouble adjusting to what we do.''

It is an outrage that Saunders does not have a head-coaching job in this postseason of change. Over the last four seasons, the Colts, led by Peyton Manning and offensive coordinator Tom Moore, have put up 27.5 points per game. That's only second best in the NFL. The lesser lights, Kansas City's Trent Green and Saunders, have put up 28.7. I guess the consolation prize for Saunders is that he's making low-level head-coach money, but if I were him, I'd be furious.

ROYC75
01-23-2006, 09:04 AM
You Go Al, you Go.


Oh wait, he already did .

MOhillbilly
01-23-2006, 09:05 AM
if you dont blame carl for not making Saunders the HC youre a Homer extreme.

Washington fan is thrilled to have Saunders.

Peterson ****ed Saunders. end of story.

siberian khatru
01-23-2006, 09:07 AM
It's not about numbers.

For whatever reason(s), teams don't think Al is HC material. Particularly the teams that know him best, KC and St. Louis. Maybe Al's right and the rest of the league is wrong, but I suspect there's something there we don't know (other than what might've been alluded to in Whitlock's column).

We don't talk to Al one-on-one; other teams have. We just look at the offensive numbers, but people who have actually been in contact with him don't think he's a HC.

Messier
01-23-2006, 09:11 AM
Dick Vermeil left every facet of the offense to Saunders.

That's just not true, Mike Solari was totally in charge of the running game. He drew up the running plays and designed the protections for both running and passing plays.

MOhillbilly
01-23-2006, 09:18 AM
That's just not true, Mike Solari was totally in charge of the running game. He drew up the running plays and designed the protections for both running and passing plays.

Its still a dumb move to split them up.

nychief
01-23-2006, 09:20 AM
Al saunders INVENTED the forward pass.

Woodrow Call
01-23-2006, 09:21 AM
Al saunders INVENTED the forward pass.
ROFL

KChiefs1
01-23-2006, 09:23 AM
Blame Carl Peterson all you want, but isn't it strange that there were 10 head coaching vacancies available this offseason & NONE of them hired Al Saunders?????

There is a difference between being a great coordinator & being a great head coach. Obviously, the teams interviewing saw something or should I say a lack of something in Saunders to hire him as head coach.

Sure I hate to lose a guy who brought some exciting offenses to the Chiefs the last five years, but look what it got us...zilch! Am I blaming Saunders for that? No, but he certainly didn't help the Chiefs win the Super Bowl did he?

Dr. Van Halen
01-23-2006, 09:23 AM
if you dont blame carl for not making Saunders the HC youre a Homer extreme.

Washington fan is thrilled to have Saunders.

Peterson ****ed Saunders. end of story.

I think any team would be thrilled to have Saunders AS AN OFFENSIVE COORDINATOR.

NO ONE wanted him as a head coach. No one. Not one team. So, do you blame everyone else -- who might have more knowledge on the subject than you or the media -- who didn't hire him? Why hasn't anyone hired you as a GM?

nychief
01-23-2006, 09:28 AM
I believe whitlock on this one... just more misimformation.

ROYC75
01-23-2006, 09:28 AM
Damn, this thread could get ugly .........


Off season brawls are fun ......... :D

jidar
01-23-2006, 09:29 AM
Dick Vermeil left every facet of the offense to Saunders, and Saunders was so controlling that he never would call the same play over a four-game span. His theory was that if teams studied the Chiefs, he didn't want them ever to see anything predictable in the four previous games Kansas City played. "I think that's taking it a bit too far,'' Vermeil told me last year, "but you can't argue with Al's success. It works. He's done a fantastic job. And the fact is, teams do have trouble adjusting to what we do.''



I agree with Kings point that AS is an offensive god, but this quote is just not true. Unless they were just giving it a different name each time, I'm pretty sure there is a sweep-left style play that we called often.

Chiefnj
01-23-2006, 09:34 AM
I think any team would be thrilled to have Saunders AS AN OFFENSIVE COORDINATOR.

NO ONE wanted him as a head coach. No one. Not one team. So, do you blame everyone else -- who might have more knowledge on the subject than you or the media -- who didn't hire him? Why hasn't anyone hired you as a GM?

Or, you can look at it as not one GM of a losing team wanted him as head coach. The same GM's who draft WR's three years in a row in the first round. The same GM's who wear leisure jumpsuits and go through a new head coach every two years. The same GM's who let Tom Brady slide to the 7th round.

I think there are two major trends with coaches this offseason - the first is age. Coaching is a young persons game. And, the second is control. A GM is likely to have a little more control over a younger guy with no head coaching experience.

htismaqe
01-23-2006, 09:50 AM
Al saunders INVENTED the forward pass.

ROFL

That's so true!

FringeNC
01-23-2006, 09:51 AM
What does it mean not to be head coach material? What does a head coach do, especially a hands-off head coach that a good coordinator couldn't do? Do teams simply want a rah-rah guy as head coach?

What exactly is the role now of Joe Gibbs in
Washington?

It seems that the trend is toward hands-off head coaches, and strong coordinators who make as much as head coaches. My guess is that GMs feel that Saunders won't be able to relate to the players, and get them fired up. Whitlock hinted at that in his hatchet-job.

patteeu
01-23-2006, 09:51 AM
I guess Al Saunders is one of Peter King's reliable sources.

MOhillbilly
01-23-2006, 09:58 AM
I think any team would be thrilled to have Saunders AS AN OFFENSIVE COORDINATOR.

NO ONE wanted him as a head coach. No one. Not one team. So, do you blame everyone else -- who might have more knowledge on the subject than you or the media -- who didn't hire him? Why hasn't anyone hired you as a GM?

Why would he want to go to a team where he would make less and be a scapegoat when he could go to Washington and possibly make a run for a SB in 06' and make HC money?
its about opportunity in the NFL. About whats right for the individual coach.

Let me ask you Mr. Halen why does peterson always bring in the safe hire as coach? guys he knows?
Why cant he bring in someone from outside the loop?

COchief
01-23-2006, 10:01 AM
I thought this was the best part:

"Goat of the Week

Denver CB Domonique Foxworth. Next to the phrase "burnt toast'' in Webster's Dictionary is a head shot of Foxworth."

Ha Ha Donks

Reerun_KC
01-23-2006, 10:03 AM
Al Saunders invented the internet too.

Messier
01-23-2006, 10:26 AM
Why would he want to go to a team where he would make less and be a scapegoat when he could go to Washington and possibly make a run for a SB in 06' and make HC money?
its about opportunity in the NFL. About whats right for the individual coach.

Let me ask you Mr. Halen why does peterson always bring in the safe hire as coach? guys he knows?
Why cant he bring in someone from outside the loop?



No, you take the head coaching job. If there was one real offer you take the job.

Why wouldn't Peterson bring in people he knows? Edwards is qualified and he knows him what's the problem? You want him to bring in some other guy that Peterson doesn't know just for the sake of being someone he doesn't know?

RedThat
01-23-2006, 10:34 AM
if you dont blame carl for not making Saunders the HC youre a Homer extreme.

Washington fan is thrilled to have Saunders.

Peterson ****ed Saunders. end of story.


:rolleyes:

htismaqe
01-23-2006, 10:34 AM
You want him to bring in some other guy that Peterson doesn't know just for the sake of being someone he doesn't know?

Um, yeah?

It's been over a decade since we won a playoff game. I have to question whether or not Carl knows what he's doing.

His endorsement of a coach should not be considered a positive, IMO.

MOhillbilly
01-23-2006, 10:47 AM
No, you take the head coaching job. If there was one real offer you take the job.

Why wouldn't Peterson bring in people he knows? Edwards is qualified and he knows him what's the problem? You want him to bring in some other guy that Peterson doesn't know just for the sake of being someone he doesn't know?
OK since you dont know i will tell you. Peterson brings in 'safe hires' because he knows he can control them.
Top canidates outside the "loop" dont want to come to KC because they wont be able to get along w/ Peterson.

Take it to the bank.

Color Red
01-23-2006, 10:50 AM
I have a new theory regarding the selection of HC's. Of course we understand that successful coordinators don't necessarily make successful HC's. I think I can partly speak to the "why?". I came up with this unscientific pontification while watching an Oakland game this past season.

Successful headcoaches need to be able to be a dynamic figurehead, inspirational --even if off the field-- leader. They need gusto. Passion. And be able to convey that to their players. I think players necessarily mirror the heart and feeling of their HC. Vermeil. Shottenheimer. Shanahan. Cower. They all portray something --a passion that their players need to draw on and reflect in order to be successful.

The coach in Oakland the past few years, everyone says he's a great offensive mind, successful. Norv Turner. But on the sidelines he is working through the play and plays of his team, and not portraying heart and a passion so critical at that point. He appears to be laboring through the game like the OC should be. I think Saunders is that way.

When Wade Phillips was HC of Denver he would so often look confused and undistinguished during a game. Players look to the sideline and see that too. What do you think Steeler players see when they look to their sidelines? That "jaw" sticking out that is so part and parcel of philosophy that Cower portrays. Those guys play like Cower acts. Tough. Like steel. (No wonder they let us have Kendrell Bell.)

This doesn't mean that particularly undynamic HC's aren't and can't be successful. Belichek doesn't entirely "wow" them in his leadership portrayal from the bench. But his leadership has been so otherwise documented and deeply engrained in his players. A Lombardi. A Ditka.

This also doesn't mean that impassioned HC's are necessarily successful. You do have to take care of the X's and O's through your coaching staff and run a right ship otherwise. But I think with all else (talent, gameplan, health) in place, lacking this ingredient will more times than not make you an also-ran.

That's one reason why I'm glad the Chiefs hired Herm.

Dr. Van Halen
01-23-2006, 11:11 AM
OK since you dont know i will tell you. Peterson brings in 'safe hires' because he knows he can control them.
Top canidates outside the "loop" dont want to come to KC because they wont be able to get along w/ Peterson.

Take it to the bank.

Wow. Who were the "top candidates" outside of the "loop" that didn't want to come to KC? Can you name them? That's interesting.

Also, you really seem to just hate Carl Peterson, which makes your arguments seem less valid. Can you list 5 good things CP has done, just to show that you are unbiased and should be listened to?

MOhillbilly
01-23-2006, 11:20 AM
Wow. Who were the "top candidates" outside of the "loop" that didn't want to come to KC? Can you name them? That's interesting.

Also, you really seem to just hate Carl Peterson, which makes your arguments seem less valid. Can you list 5 good things CP has done, just to show that you are unbiased and should be listened to?


If you dont know look it up.
And i could list more than 5 things.

But i can list one thing that he hasnt done and thats get KC a superbowl VICTORY.
im not a CP fan,Im a Kansas City Chiefs Fan.

Its all about SB wins.

penchief
01-23-2006, 11:24 AM
I have a new theory regarding the selection of HC's. Of course we understand that successful coordinators don't necessarily make successful HC's. I think I can partly speak to the "why?". I came up with this unscientific pontification while watching an Oakland game this past season.

Successful headcoaches need to be able to be a dynamic figurehead, inspirational --even if off the field-- leader. They need gusto. Passion. And be able to convey that to their players. I think players necessarily mirror the heart and feeling of their HC. Vermeil. Shottenheimer. Shanahan. Cower. They all portray something --a passion that their players need to draw on and reflect in order to be successful.

The coach in Oakland the past few years, everyone says he's a great offensive mind, successful. Norv Turner. But on the sidelines he is working through the play and plays of his team, and not portraying heart and a passion so critical at that point. He appears to be laboring through the game like the OC should be. I think Saunders is that way.

When Wade Phillips was HC of Denver he would so often look confused and undistinguished during a game. Players look to the sideline and see that too. What do you think Steeler players see when they look to their sidelines? That "jaw" sticking out that is so part and parcel of philosophy that Cower portrays. Those guys play like Cower acts. Tough. Like steel. (No wonder they let us have Kendrell Bell.)

This doesn't mean that particularly undynamic HC's aren't and can't be successful. Belichek doesn't entirely "wow" them in his leadership portrayal from the bench. But his leadership has been so otherwise documented and deeply engrained in his players. A Lombardi. A Ditka.

This also doesn't mean that impassioned HC's are necessarily successful. You do have to take care of the X's and O's through your coaching staff and run a right ship otherwise. But I think with all else (talent, gameplan, health) in place, lacking this ingredient will more times than not make you an also-ran.

That's one reason why I'm glad the Chiefs hired Herm.

Nice post and a decent analysis, IMO.

Dr. Van Halen
01-23-2006, 11:33 AM
If you dont know look it up.
And i could list more than 5 things.




I'd try to look it up, if it wasn't total and complete bs crap. There were no magical HC candidates that the Chiefs didn't interview b/c people think Peterson is a jerkface.

MOhillbilly
01-23-2006, 11:35 AM
I'd try to look it up, if it wasn't total and complete bs crap. There were no magical HC candidates that the Chiefs didn't interview b/c people think Peterson is a jerkface.

Youre wrong but thats OK.

Brock
01-23-2006, 11:37 AM
I'd try to look it up, if it wasn't total and complete bs crap. There were no magical HC candidates that the Chiefs didn't interview b/c people think Peterson is a jerkface.

I'd be more inclined to believe someone who knows personally one of the candidates. That's MO. Believe what you want.

MOhillbilly
01-23-2006, 11:40 AM
So the other owners around the league are pussycats who treat their HCs like princes?

No one wants to be the Head Coach of the Chiefs because Carl is a meanie?

Riiiiiiiight...

xoxo~
Gaz
Not buying it.


look to buffalo.

htismaqe
01-23-2006, 11:43 AM
Wow. Who were the "top candidates" outside of the "loop" that didn't want to come to KC? Can you name them? That's interesting.

Also, you really seem to just hate Carl Peterson, which makes your arguments seem less valid. Can you list 5 good things CP has done, just to show that you are unbiased and should be listened to?

Considering that a prominent NFL coach is a member of his family, I think he may be speaking from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.

Messier
01-23-2006, 11:45 AM
Youre wrong but thats OK.


MOhillbilly you talk like others don't know much about footbal, but you seem to not have a valid point. Show us something that will help others not assume you're not talking out your ass, other than Edwards and Saunders, because the both are "safe" hires, who is the best person for the job?

Chief Faithful
01-23-2006, 11:47 AM
The only reason Peter King is now a Al Saunders supporter is because he coaches for Washington not KC.

RedThat
01-23-2006, 11:52 AM
I have a new theory regarding the selection of HC's. Of course we understand that successful coordinators don't necessarily make successful HC's. I think I can partly speak to the "why?". I came up with this unscientific pontification while watching an Oakland game this past season.

Successful headcoaches need to be able to be a dynamic figurehead, inspirational --even if off the field-- leader. They need gusto. Passion. And be able to convey that to their players. I think players necessarily mirror the heart and feeling of their HC. Vermeil. Shottenheimer. Shanahan. Cower. They all portray something --a passion that their players need to draw on and reflect in order to be successful.

The coach in Oakland the past few years, everyone says he's a great offensive mind, successful. Norv Turner. But on the sidelines he is working through the play and plays of his team, and not portraying heart and a passion so critical at that point. He appears to be laboring through the game like the OC should be. I think Saunders is that way.

When Wade Phillips was HC of Denver he would so often look confused and undistinguished during a game. Players look to the sideline and see that too. What do you think Steeler players see when they look to their sidelines? That "jaw" sticking out that is so part and parcel of philosophy that Cower portrays. Those guys play like Cower acts. Tough. Like steel. (No wonder they let us have Kendrell Bell.)

This doesn't mean that particularly undynamic HC's aren't and can't be successful. Belichek doesn't entirely "wow" them in his leadership portrayal from the bench. But his leadership has been so otherwise documented and deeply engrained in his players. A Lombardi. A Ditka.

This also doesn't mean that impassioned HC's are necessarily successful. You do have to take care of the X's and O's through your coaching staff and run a right ship otherwise. But I think with all else (talent, gameplan, health) in place, lacking this ingredient will more times than not make you an also-ran.

That's one reason why I'm glad the Chiefs hired Herm.

That's a pretty good analysis. I agree with what your saying. I'd like to add my 2 cents as well. I think what's also important, and a responsiblity of a head coach is getting your players to believe. The players not only have to believe in themselves, but in what the coach is doing as well. See when you believe, you have confidence.

That's extremely important. Having confidence. It gives your team an edge. Another thing is, trust. Gotta get the players to trust you. Coach has to trust the players.

Oh yes Im happy we hired Herm. I think he brings all that to the table. Plus, he is a competitor.

MOhillbilly
01-23-2006, 11:53 AM
MOhillbilly you talk like others don't know much about footbal, but you seem to not have a valid point. Show us something that will help others not assume you're not talking out your ass, other than Edwards and Saunders, because the both are "safe" hires, who is the best person for the job?

yeah i would but i dont like you, and ive posted my thoughts on this before.
look it up.

Messier
01-23-2006, 11:54 AM
What a shame.

Messier
01-23-2006, 12:01 PM
But I like you MOhillbilly.

Mike in SW-MO
01-23-2006, 12:02 PM
That's a pretty good analysis. I agree with what your saying. I'd like to add my 2 cents as well. I think what's also important, and a responsiblity of a head coach is getting your players to believe. The players not only have to believe in themselves, but in what the coach is doing as well. See when you believe, you have confidence.

That's extremely important. Having confidence. It gives your team an edge. Another thing is, trust. Gotta get the players to trust you. Coach has to trust the players.

Oh yes Im happy we hired Herm. I think he brings all that to the table. Plus, he is a competitor.

That's a really good point.

Marty's team collapsed when they stopped listening. All of a sudden they didn't listen and he couldn't correct stuff that he knew was wrong. How many times did he say that last year, "I guarantee we'll have that fixed before next week." or some other version thereof.

That makes Cowher's ability to last so long in Pittsburgh even more impressive. Kind of highlights the consequences of not drafting "character" guys that fit in with the head coach.

Dr. Van Halen
01-23-2006, 12:04 PM
yeah i would but i dont like you, and ive posted my thoughts on this before.
look it up.

Ha! You are awesome!

Oh, and I'm related to a head coach too! And five presidents! God bless the anonymous internet!

htismaqe
01-23-2006, 12:08 PM
Ha! You are awesome!

Oh, and I'm related to a head coach too! And five presidents! God bless the anonymous internet!

Let's just put it this way:

I've been a part of some discussions with MO's family member. Out of respect, I'm not gonna go into detail.

But if you're wanting 3rd-party validation of his opinion and it's source, here it is.

nascher
01-23-2006, 12:28 PM
pretty obvious know he left KC he is god before he was just unknown.

Claynus
01-23-2006, 12:30 PM
There was just something wrong with Al. I think it was his age, personally.

Dr. Van Halen
01-23-2006, 01:19 PM
Let's just put it this way:

I've been a part of some discussions with MO's family member. Out of respect, I'm not gonna go into detail.

But if you're wanting 3rd-party validation of his opinion and it's source, here it is.

I'm guessing he's claiming to be related to G. Williams. How wonderful for him.

That said, MOhillbilly is doing his kinsman a great disservice by coming on a public forum and stating (in a goofy, tough guy, wink-wink way) this stuff. The public probably shouldn't know that G. Williams didn't want to work for the Chiefs because he thought Peterson was mean.

MOhillbilly
01-23-2006, 01:27 PM
I'm guessing he's claiming to be related to G. Williams. How wonderful for him.

That said, MOhillbilly is doing his kinsman a great disservice by coming on a public forum and stating (in a goofy, tough guy, wink-wink way) this stuff. The public probably shouldn't know that G. Williams didn't want to work for the Chiefs because he thought Peterson was mean.

dont put words in my mouth.

Stinger
01-23-2006, 01:34 PM
Saunders was so controlling that he never would call the same play over a four-game span. His theory was that if teams studied the Chiefs, he didn't want them ever to see anything predictable in the four previous games that Kansas City had played.
I call BS :BS: on this, how many times per game did we see a WR or TE screen?

htismaqe
01-23-2006, 01:48 PM
I'm guessing he's claiming to be related to G. Williams. How wonderful for him.

That said, MOhillbilly is doing his kinsman a great disservice by coming on a public forum and stating (in a goofy, tough guy, wink-wink way) this stuff. The public probably shouldn't know that G. Williams didn't want to work for the Chiefs because he thought Peterson was mean.

ROFL

That's some dumb shit right there.

Halfcan
01-23-2006, 01:57 PM
If Peter sucker King loves Al so much, why did he say our offense was old and would be over the hill before the season started last year. Al goes to the Skins-now he is praising the man. That is why I don't read anything by this jackazz.

patteeu
01-23-2006, 02:02 PM
Even if MOhillbilly is right about his relative (aka Gregg with two g's), that proves nothing other than that there is one NFL coach who doesn't want to work with Carl (which I think should be taken with a grain of salt, htismaqe's testimonial notwithstanding), that doesn't prove that "Peterson brings in 'safe hires' because he knows he can control them." or that "Top canidates outside the "loop" dont want to come to KC because they wont be able to get along w/ Peterson." It gives us a little bit of supporting evidence, but it doesn't prove the case.

MOhillbilly
01-23-2006, 02:13 PM
at this point im so tired of having it brought up ive contimplated leaving for good.
I never really wanted this to get out the way it did but whats done is done.
im no liar and i dont want to just come out and blab. but im tired of it all the same.
ive never said anything that would compromise any position or given any info that could be used against anyone.
I just stated what was said long ago.

donkhater
01-23-2006, 02:30 PM
Dick Vermeil left every facet of the offense to Saunders, and Saunders was so controlling that he never would call the same play over a four-game span. His theory was that if teams studied the Chiefs, he didn't want them ever to see anything predictable in the four previous games Kansas City played.
My ass. That sweep is ran a minimum of 6 times a game and I think that play action, fake end-around throw to a wide open EK on a 15-yard in route is at least once a game.

donkhater
01-23-2006, 02:31 PM
I call BS :BS: on this, how many times per game did we see a WR or TE screen?
Oops. Sorry Stinger. I totally agree with you.

Chief Faithful
01-23-2006, 02:50 PM
Oh, and I'm related to a head coach too! And five presidents! God bless the anonymous internet!

Yeah...that's the ticket!

Claynus
01-23-2006, 02:50 PM
I think that play action, fake end-around throw to a wide open EK on a 15-yard in route is at least once a game.

Al runs that every game. It ALWAYS works.

I've never seen anyone stop it.

The great thing about that play is they often run a screen pass out of the same formation with the same play action fake. The defense doesn't know what's coming.

I'd love to grill Al about a few of his signature plays.