Why Al Saunders Should Get A Shot... - Page 2

RINGLEADER · 01-02-2006, 02:01 PM

I'm by no means the biggest Al Saunders fan in the world but there are a few facts that I believe have earned him the right to take over the Chiefs:

1) He's been loyal to the franchise and Vermeil and stayed the course when he likely could have landed a head coaching gig elsewhere;

2) He's kept the Chiefs offense in the top five over the past four years (including the top spot the last two years);

3) As much as I felt he DIDN'T get it during the first eight games of the year I truly started to believe that he DID get it over the last half of the season. He recognized the dimension that Larry Johnson brought to this offense and he leaned on the guy heavily as he rightly should have...I had fewer problems with the play calling and the results seemed to speak for themselves after the Buffalo debacle;

4) Al would keep the offense intact and I have to believe the loyalty of his assistants would innure to the benefit of the Chiefs...bottomline is the number one offense would remain intact which to me is the biggest concern we should have in switching gears. If we move to a different offense it will cost us at least two games next year (if not more).

Bottomline is that Al Saunders will be a head coach somewhere next season. And given the names being bandied about (Butch Davis, Herm Edwards, Gregg Williams) I think I - and the Chiefs players - would feel more confident with a guy that's proven he can succeed (even if it's only on his side of the ball) then someone coming off a 4-12 season.

milkman · 01-02-2006, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

If we play smashmouth football next year, I may have to gouge my eyes out. I hate pussy-fied play-not-to-lose football. Nothing about the offense needs to change, or should change, except perhaps a little more attention to clock management. Leave the offense alone, and continue the progressive recovery of the defense.

Smashmouth football does not equal play not to lose.

keg in kc · 01-02-2006, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B2chiefsfan

Draft, FA,............Defense, Defense, Defense.....

I don't agree with that, either. Draft needs to be BAA, at least at the top, excluding RB. We're very old on offense, and you've got to think beyond 2006 on draft day, rather than looking only at short term needs.

And FA depends on what's available, both in terms of money to spend and what positions are represented. I have a feeling we won't have money to spend, because so much of the team is still under contract, and because we spent so much in '05. If you want a lot of free agents, then you'll have to dismantle the team, and that would be shifting into a rebuilding mode. Which is fine if that's what you want to do.

milkman · 01-02-2006, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B2chiefsfan

Gunther should be the only one in the War Room during the draft.......assuming he's still here....

Let's see.

He was in the war room for William Bartee.

The guy is a terrible talent evaluator.

FringeNC · 01-02-2006, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by siberian khatru

I think he gets too pass-happy at times.

By no means am I saying Al's a failure. I like the way the O has turned out too. I'm just saying that I think we have the personnel to succeed even if Al goes.

I bet we run the ball more than any team in the NFL except Atlanta and Denver.

keg in kc · 01-02-2006, 02:55 PM

It's a matter of opinion, and in mine, smashmouth football does equal martyball. I like balance on offense. I don't want to be predictable, and I don't like conservative playcalling. At all.

You're welcome to disagree with that opinion. But you're not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to try to change yours.

FringeNC · 01-02-2006, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

It's a matter of opinion, and in mine, smashmouth football does equal martyball. I like balance on offense. I don't want to be predictable, and I don't like conservative playcalling. At all.

You're welcome to disagree with that opinion. But you're not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to try to change yours.

Yeah, when's the last time a smash-mouth team put up 400 yards and 28-30 points per game?

milkman · 01-02-2006, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

It's a matter of opinion, and in mine, smashmouth football does equal martyball. I like balance on offense. I don't want to be predictable, and I don't like conservative playcalling. At all.

You're welcome to disagree with that opinion. But you're not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to try to change yours.

Well damn, there goes a good argument!

You suck!

siberian khatru · 01-02-2006, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FringeNC

I bet we run the ball more than any team in the NFL except Atlanta and Denver.

We were sixth in rushing attempts in 2005.

But your point is taken. We run the ball a lot. My criticism is more situational -- it's not the number of times we run or throw, it's WHEN we run or throw.

But, look, this is essentially nit-picking. Our offensive points scored over the last four years are impressive. Al gets the credit for that.

I was just saying, I think we could have an effective offense without all of Al's quirks.

siberian khatru · 01-02-2006, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

It's a matter of opinion, and in mine, smashmouth football does equal martyball. I like balance on offense. I don't want to be predictable, and I don't like conservative playcalling. At all.

You're welcome to disagree with that opinion. But you're not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to try to change yours.

OK, then, fuck off.

Mr. Laz · 01-02-2006, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luv2rite

Offense, offense, offense. We have offense. We need defense.

we need defense without losing the offense we have.

Brock · 01-02-2006, 03:04 PM

I think the people who are looking for a big shakeup are going to be disappointed. I think it's going to be Al Saunders, with the same coaching staff.

siberian khatru · 01-02-2006, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

I think the people who are looking for a big shakeup are going to be disappointed. I think it's going to be Al Saunders, with the same coaching staff.

So you think Carl was playing poker yesterday ("I know Al's strengths ... AND his weaknesses")?

Brock · 01-02-2006, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by siberian khatru

So you think Carl was playing poker yesterday ("I know Al's strengths ... AND his weaknesses")?

The only way to be sure Carl is lying is if he is talking.

FringeNC · 01-02-2006, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

I think the people who are looking for a big shakeup are going to be disappointed. I think it's going to be Al Saunders, with the same coaching staff.

How can Saunders coach Detroit and KC at the same time?

Mecca · 01-02-2006, 03:08 PM

I think the odds of Al Saunders being the head coach are at about 5%.

01-02-2006, 02:01 PM
RINGLEADER In Search of a Life Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Confusion, USA Casino cash: $8590503	Why Al Saunders Should Get A Shot... I'm by no means the biggest Al Saunders fan in the world but there are a few facts that I believe have earned him the right to take over the Chiefs: 1) He's been loyal to the franchise and Vermeil and stayed the course when he likely could have landed a head coaching gig elsewhere; 2) He's kept the Chiefs offense in the top five over the past four years (including the top spot the last two years); 3) As much as I felt he DIDN'T get it during the first eight games of the year I truly started to believe that he DID get it over the last half of the season. He recognized the dimension that Larry Johnson brought to this offense and he leaned on the guy heavily as he rightly should have...I had fewer problems with the play calling and the results seemed to speak for themselves after the Buffalo debacle; 4) Al would keep the offense intact and I have to believe the loyalty of his assistants would innure to the benefit of the Chiefs...bottomline is the number one offense would remain intact which to me is the biggest concern we should have in switching gears. If we move to a different offense it will cost us at least two games next year (if not more). Bottomline is that Al Saunders will be a head coach somewhere next season. And given the names being bandied about (Butch Davis, Herm Edwards, Gregg Williams) I think I - and the Chiefs players - would feel more confident with a guy that's proven he can succeed (even if it's only on his side of the ball) then someone coming off a 4-12 season.
Posts: 46,711

01-02-2006, 02:55 PM	#20
keg in kc oxymoron Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: OP/KC/Whatever Casino cash: $9556299	It's a matter of opinion, and in mine, smashmouth football does equal martyball. I like balance on offense. I don't want to be predictable, and I don't like conservative playcalling. At all. You're welcome to disagree with that opinion. But you're not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to try to change yours.
Posts: 58,682

01-02-2006, 03:04 PM	#26
Brock Say hello to my little friend Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Larryville Casino cash: $9598422	I think the people who are looking for a big shakeup are going to be disappointed. I think it's going to be Al Saunders, with the same coaching staff.
Posts: 47,314

01-02-2006, 03:08 PM	#30
Mecca Hockey Town Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Casino cash: $2097050	I think the odds of Al Saunders being the head coach are at about 5%.
Posts: 111,280