LJ was able to block Ware one-on-one in a similar situation earlier in that game. You saw this week that three straight runs doesn't necessarily cut it either.

Okay on that specific play or what was supposed to be a play, I agree with you. But that was one bad call. I have nothing but good things to say about Al Saunders, he has knowledge of the game and typically brings it to the table.

Pretty much how I feel.

Alas, if Carl Peterson stays the entire tumor has not been excised and it will just grow back.

When? The only other times we got close to the rezone we ran the ball and scored.

Perhaps when they were able to spread the field but not tight in the redzone. The entire point I was trying to make was it was taking an unnecessary risk in that situation. There was absolutely no reason to believe what had been working well already wouldn't work again, as well as we knew we had the lead and the clock was running out. They needed to control the clock, not throw incompletions to stop it.

They could have ran 3 run plays for 9 yards and if we didn't punch it in at least we could have kicked a field goal and went into the half with a 7 point lead and the momentum on our side.

Well I won't continue to argue about it, if you don't think that specific play calling was terrible then it certainly wouldn't do any good. Saunders did call the plays right two times previously in the redzone, both times we ran the ball and both times we scored.

A faint hope that the Chiefs, CP, and the Hunts have finally learned their lessons from past mistakes, and realize that their opportunity to get a ring, in the foreseeable future, is slippin' away... :shrug:

I agree, for the most part Saunders does well but in almost every game he tries to get cute in a bad situation a couple of times. Sometimes it works and everybody hails him a genius and sometimes it doesn't and we get what we have there.

I just don't agree with taking unnecessary risks in situations when you have the game under control by doing what you do well. Thats generally when you lose control.

I'd like to know in DV's tenure here how many red-zone turnovers we've had, and how many came on passing plays (INT or sack/fumble).

And I'd like to know how many were in 2001 and how many since.

I pretty much agree with that; but CP, apparently, is going NO WHERE.

How do we make the best of a bad situation then? Keep Saunders as HC, and gut the entire defensive coaching staff.....adding a few key players in the draft and FA.

In today's NFL, that might be enough... :hmmm:

What are you going to do about the OL? The WR? The FB? Backup RB? Backup QB? It's bad all over.

How many times have we been in that situation and scored on a similar call in the past five years? Quite a few, I suspect.

I understand your point, but it's all just a guessing game.

If you think Al has had problems with "playcalling" need I remind you of the names: Jimmy Raye and Paul Hackett? :spock:

Seriously, every OC in the league is second guessed to death, when they fail; and lauded when they succeed. It's the nature of the beast. I just think we need to look at the big picture....the history: that's what separates Saunders from Raye, Hackett, and other wanna-be OCs.

Because defense wins championships, and a tough defense starts with the HC. The last thing we need is some OC that enjoys calling cute plays in charge of our already aweful D.

I think the Bears should be our blueprint. Bring in a guy with a simple defense that smashes people in the mouth. No 2" playbook, no 500 blitzes, no cute pre-snap motion. Put the guys in position and play your game. If the guys you have can't do it, get new guys. Look at the Bears roster, it's not like they are filled with big-time names on the defensive side of the ball. (outside Urlacher) They run and they TACKLE (what a concept)

DT

Well, in that time we had Priest Holmes in the backfield blocking, not a 2000 yard college rushing back that rarely pass blocked in his career and hasn't been on the NFL field long enough to fully understand the technique, hence why most of the time they will pull LJ on obvious passing downs.

Guessing games are one thing but I've always been under the impression that you go with what you know works until its been proven that it doesn't, specifically in a very obvious situation.

If Roaf retires, LT is the only "big" problem I forsee....and, yes, that's big. Either we draft to fill it, or it becomes FA priority number one. WR? I think Parker, and maybe Thorpe can fill in adequately assuming Kennison is back. Adding a FA would be nice though. TRich's successor may already be on the roster: anyone remember TRich's "stock" when Kimble Anders was the man? Maybe Cruz; maybe a FA, or Wilson converted? Backup RBs will be availble in FA. QBOTF is a draft gamble regardless; may be available in FA.

Bad all over? One starter to replace. Three starters need an understudy to groom. We still have a lot of the pieces in place, IMO.

I agree.

But what works in one game and situation, against one team....isn't necessarily going to work against another team, in a slightly different situation necessarily.

It's only obvious because it didn't work, that time. How many OTHER times, on other plays has LJ MADE that block? I honestly don't know the answer, but I suspect he's MADE the block more than a few times....

Being an OC is a tough, tough job. It involves a lot of preparation and study, no doubt. However, there is an element of educated-"guessing" that is always present. When they succeed they look like a genius; when they fail, they are a goat.

Al's been much more of a "genious" than a goat.

Has he had good and experienced players? Yup. But there have also been a lot of good players on teams who haven't achieved what our offense has achieved over the past five years.

That's a good response. That is a reasonable take, IMO. If we want a possible return to Martyball, then it makes sense.

I can buy that. Rep.