Of Two Minds On Offense

During the last month, Saunders said the biggest change in the Redskins wasn't the blocking schemes as much as it was "attitude," but it also meant that the resistance he felt from the players in adopting some of his themes had to some degree affected his thinking.

"It was a culmination of everything that happened at that point. You're not winning games. You start out 0-6," Gibbs said, a reference to the Redskins' 0-4 preseason and 0-2 start in the regular season. "It was evolving to a point you just say, 'This is not us.' We all went through it. Generally, for me, it's the whole team. When we've been good here, it's when the defense stops the run and the offense runs. I wasn't talking to just Al. I was talking to everyone."

But after the Nov. 20 meeting, Redskins players and coaches said Saunders channeled Gibbs.

"We are running the hell out of the ball now," said a member of the Redskins' coaching staff who asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the Gibbs-Saunders relationship. "I don't think Coach meant to embarrass Al, but in making it so clear that he wanted to run the football, I think Al is realizing he doesn't have the control he thought he was getting."

Saunders has always maintained that adjusting to his system was a process, but, according to numerous sources, Gibbs had difficulty adjusting both to the process and the loss of offensive authority that had been his hallmark.

"They may have come from the same tree, but they branched off in totally different directions," a Redskins coach said. "One guy wants to give you options on top of options in the passing game. The other is conservative and wants to limit what you can do because it limits the mistakes you can make. One guy wants lots of guys out in passing routes with the freedom to expand on those routes. The other wants protection and a few guys out. On top of that is the personality of how they approach it. One wants to take chances by nature. The other doesn't."

Saunders said he did not take offense at Gibbs's comments. Quite the contrary, Saunders said he was energized by the meeting. He acknowledged difficulties this season but claimed loyalty to Gibbs and the Redskins organization. Neither man says tension exists beyond the expected disappointments that come during a losing season.

"We're all assistants here. This is Joe Gibbs's team. I don't have any illusions about that," Saunders said. "The resistance to change was something I didn't quite anticipate and to be truthful, I did think we'd be further along than we are at this point."

Their personalities are worth noting. Saunders is scientific, technical, willing to de-emphasize the immediate for the long view. He is more analytical, perhaps less willing to be governed only by the end result. Gibbs is more visceral, more linear. To Gibbs, the coin only has two sides: there is winning and there is losing.

"A big part of me has always been, 'What happened?' We played 15 games, okay? What happened?" Gibbs said. "The good thing about what we do as opposed to when I was doing NBC analyst work was that [as an analyst] I didn't know. Did I do a good job? I didn't know because nobody was keeping score. How do you keep score in that environment? Here, we keep score."

'Put It on Us'

For a time, Saunders believed he could win the cultural war. After an 0-2 start this season, the Redskins won two games against the Texans and Jaguars. Washington was dominant in those games as the offense produced 976 yards. Brunell completed 42 of 57 passes for 590 yards, four touchdowns against one interception, and posted a 122.7 passer rating.

For Saunders, the victories provided vindication for the ridicule he took for creating a 700-page playbook and for utilizing so little of his offense during the winless preseason, a source of second-guessing among coaches and players. The successes against Houston and Jacksonville reminded him why he chose to come to Washington.