Al Saunders

[cdcox]

Cassel doesn't have the accuracy or ability to read a defense to run Saunders offense. There is a reason most of Cassel's passes go 5 yards or less through the air. Cassel running Saunders down field passing attack would be a disaster. Cassel can't even throw a swing pass, another staple of Saunders offense.

Roaf and Shields were already HOFers before Saunders was OC. We don't have any where near that talent level here. Bringing him in isn't going to magically transform our OL into the 2003 OL.

Saunders is a very good OC who was terrible HC in his only stint. He's never been given a second chance to be a HC. Probably for a good reason.

So to recreate the 2002 - 2005 magic, we would need a new QB that is going to take a year or two to come up to speed. Will Bowe be here? How many years does Saunders have left? How many years does Charles have left?

In all likelihood we are looking at a total rebuild on offense. I don't think Saunders is the right man at this stage of his career.

Saunders' glory days with the Chiefs are past. Forward.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by cdcox

Cassel doesn't have the accuracy or ability to read a defense to run Saunders offense. There is a reason most of Cassel's passes go 5 yards or less through the air. Cassel running Saunders down field passing attack would be a disaster. Cassel can't even throw a swing pass, another staple of Saunders offense.

Roaf and Shields were already HOFers before Saunders was OC. We don't have any where near that talent level here. Bringing him in isn't going to magically transform our OL into the 2003 OL.

Saunders is a very good OC who was terrible HC in his only stint. He's never been given a second chance to be a HC. Probably for a good reason.

So to recreate the 2002 - 2005 magic, we would need a new QB that is going to take a year or two to come up to speed. Will Bowe be here? How many years does Saunders have left? How many years does Charles have left?

In all likelihood we are looking at a total rebuild on offense. I don't think Saunders is the right man at this stage of his career.

Saunders' glory days with the Chiefs are past. Forward.

We're looking at a full rebuild anyway.

Not that I think a retread is a good idea or anything.

[mcan]

Originally Posted by cdcox

Cassel doesn't have the accuracy or ability to read a defense to run Saunders offense. There is a reason most of Cassel's passes go 5 yards or less through the air. Cassel running Saunders down field passing attack would be a disaster. Cassel can't even throw a swing pass, another staple of Saunders offense.

Roaf and Shields were already HOFers before Saunders was OC. We don't have any where near that talent level here. Bringing him in isn't going to magically transform our OL into the 2003 OL.

Saunders is a very good OC who was terrible HC in his only stint. He's never been given a second chance to be a HC. Probably for a good reason.

So to recreate the 2002 - 2005 magic, we would need a new QB that is going to take a year or two to come up to speed. Will Bowe be here? How many years does Saunders have left? How many years does Charles have left?

In all likelihood we are looking at a total rebuild on offense. I don't think Saunders is the right man at this stage of his career.

Saunders' glory days with the Chiefs are past. Forward.

This is a decent argument. But to me the concept of having a coach that knows how to manipulate his offense to isolate a specific weakness of a defense and then exploit that weakness... That sounds like water in a desert. And I doubt Saunders would run the exact same plays with this roster that he did in 2003.

And yes, we would need a new qb. I would think that if Saunders was ever given the reigns and a little bit of authority, he could find one in the draft that he thought could run his scheme. The growing pains of a young qb would be worth it though, come year two or three. This regime will squander whatever talent is on the field... NO ONE will succeed with these idiots in charge. It's just not possible that ALL of our players are historically bad.

Like I said in another thread. Changing the QB on this team (or anybody for that matter) is like taking away your eight year olds' plastic chess set and buying him a marble one. Oh it might LOOK prettier, but when an eight year old sits down to play with a professional, the quality of the pieces are of no consequence.


This team has been without a Grandmaster chess player for as long as I've been watching. Marty was good, and got a lot of out his players, but wasn't a brilliant tactician. The closest we've seen to a brilliant football mind was Al Saunders. Not a single head coach or assistant for this team has ever even been close.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by mcan

This is a decent argument. But to me the concept of having a coach that knows how to manipulate his offense to isolate a specific weakness of a defense and then exploit that weakness... That sounds like water in a desert. And I doubt Saunders would run the exact same plays with this roster that he did in 2003.

And yes, we would need a new qb. I would think that if Saunders was ever given the reigns and a little bit of authority, he could find one in the draft that he thought could run his scheme. The growing pains of a young qb would be worth it though, come year two or three. This regime will squander whatever talent is on the field... NO ONE will succeed with these idiots in charge. It's just not possible that ALL of our players are historically bad.

Like I said in another thread. Changing the QB on this team (or anybody for that matter) is like taking away your eight year olds' plastic chess set and buying him a marble one. Oh it might LOOK prettier, but when an eight year old sits down to play with a professional, the quality of the pieces are of no consequence.


This team has been without a Grandmaster chess player for as long as I've been watching. Marty was good, and got a lot of out his players, but wasn't a brilliant tactician. The closest we've seen to a brilliant football mind was Al Saunders. Not a single head coach or assistant for this team has ever even been close.

Are you talking about as an assistant or a head coach? As a head coach, absolutely not. As an assistant... I think there are plenty of good ones out there that we don't need to bring a guy like Saunders back.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by mcan

This is a decent argument. But to me the concept of having a coach that knows how to manipulate his offense to isolate a specific weakness of a defense and then exploit that weakness... That sounds like water in a desert. And I doubt Saunders would run the exact same plays with this roster that he did in 2003.

And yes, we would need a new qb. I would think that if Saunders was ever given the reigns and a little bit of authority, he could find one in the draft that he thought could run his scheme. The growing pains of a young qb would be worth it though, come year two or three. This regime will squander whatever talent is on the field... NO ONE will succeed with these idiots in charge. It's just not possible that ALL of our players are historically bad.

Like I said in another thread. Changing the QB on this team (or anybody for that matter) is like taking away your eight year olds' plastic chess set and buying him a marble one. Oh it might LOOK prettier, but when an eight year old sits down to play with a professional, the quality of the pieces are of no consequence.


This team has been without a Grandmaster chess player for as long as I've been watching. Marty was good, and got a lot of out his players, but wasn't a brilliant tactician. The closest we've seen to a brilliant football mind was Al Saunders. Not a single head coach or assistant for this team has ever even been close.

Yes we need a grandmaster to run our offense. His name is not Al Saunders. The Chiefs will not bring him in. If they do it will fail. That's just how these things work. You can't go home again.