PDA

View Full Version : Man those Redskins sure are scoring alot


ChiefsCountry
09-17-2006, 08:20 PM
Offense guru Al Saunders is sure making a difference. 16 first week, 10 tonight. :)

Immaculate
09-17-2006, 08:21 PM
Little to no Clinton Portis has alot to do with that.

Deberg_1990
09-17-2006, 08:21 PM
His offense here didnt fully develop until his 2nd year. Give him some time.

htismaqe
09-17-2006, 08:22 PM
Haven't you heard? Al Saunders, despite having 30+ years of experience, is with a new team, with new players. He has an excuse.

milkman
09-17-2006, 08:24 PM
Little to no Clinton Portis has alot to do with that.

I also don't think that Brunell is the right guy for this system.

htismaqe
09-17-2006, 08:24 PM
His offense here didnt fully develop until his 2nd year. Give him some time.

Who came in that 2nd year? Oh, that's right...

Willie Roaf.

:hmmm:

Immaculate
09-17-2006, 08:27 PM
I also don't think that Brunell is the right guy for this system.
Agree'd.

dirk digler
09-17-2006, 08:28 PM
I also don't think that Brunell is the right guy for this system.

Yep

dirk digler
09-17-2006, 08:37 PM
Actually their O has only scored 3 points. They had a 100yd kick return for a TD.

Brunell just threw an INT.

Guru
09-17-2006, 08:39 PM
Brunell sucks too.

runnercyclist
09-17-2006, 08:52 PM
and Brunell sucks dick

jspchief
09-17-2006, 08:53 PM
How may points did the Chiefs score in their first two games under Saunders?

I'm no Saunders fanboy, but to claim two games is some kind of indication is just stupid.

dirk digler
09-17-2006, 08:55 PM
How may points did the Chiefs score in their first two games under Saunders?

I'm no Saunders fanboy, but to claim two games is some kind of indication is just stupid.

Oakland Raiders | L | 24-27 |
New York Giants | L | 3-13 |
at Washington Redskins | W | 45-13

I wouldn't count the second game because that was after 9-11 and we were playing the Giants so to many factors there.

Phobia
09-17-2006, 08:55 PM
to claim two games is some kind of indication is just stupid.

I'm totally taking this quote over to the Huard thread.

jspchief
09-17-2006, 08:58 PM
I'm totally taking this quote over to the Huard thread.Yea, because Huard's inability to do better than 3rd string for the last 7 years is pretty much the same thing as judgung an offensive scheme two gamess into it's implementation.

You're right though gochiefs, Huard is awesome. He knows how to "manage" a 6-9 loss almost as well as Hicks knows how to handle 1-4.

Phobia
09-17-2006, 09:10 PM
Yea, because Huard's inability to do better than 3rd string for the last 7 years is pretty much the same thing as judgung an offensive scheme two gamess into it's implementation.

You're right though gochiefs, Huard is awesome. He knows how to "manage" a 6-9 loss almost as well as Hicks knows how to handle 1-4.

I don't think gochiefs or myself are suggesting Huard is awesome. We're saying that the people who insisted he's not worthy of drawing an NFL paycheck are morons. But why are we still discussing this? I'm sure you're not one of those morons.

keg in kc
09-17-2006, 09:14 PM
I don't imagine that any one of us would've said "no thanks" if we'd been offered an 18-23 performance with completions to 6 receivers from any backup QB in Denver. I certainly don't think we'd have gotten a better game out of Todd Collins or anyone else.