Of Two Minds On Offense

"Let the system work," Saunders told the players. "Trust me. It works."

One afternoon in New Jersey changed everything.

For the first time, on Oct. 8, the frustration of the players was directed at Saunders's game plan. The Redskins had rushed the ball 40 or more times against both the Texans and Jaguars, as Portis and fullback Mike Sellers set the tone with a muscular, power-game approach. Now, in a division game against the New York Giants, the Redskins ran the ball only 20 times, just six times in the second half in a 19-3 loss. On every third down with less than five yards to go, Saunders called a pass play, even on a third and one from the Giants 24-yard line with Washington down 16-3 in the third quarter.

Bugel said the Giants game represented the first real line of demarcation of the season, the first game in which Gibbs began to show a degree of uneasiness with the offensive approach he had sought to bring in. "In that game against the Giants," Bugel said, "we got embarrassed. They embarrassed us, and we knew it."

Over the next two weeks, Gibbs watched his defense get pounded in losses to Tennessee and Indianapolis, dropping the Redskins to 2-5. The offensive line was angry that off-tackle muscle had given way to such gadget plays as the end around and the reverse.

The offensive line leaned toward revolt. Against the 0-5 Titans, right guard Randy Thomas was disturbed. "Man, they were rotating the same guys in the fourth quarter as they did in the first," Thomas said of the Titans' defensive line. "They weren't tired at all. What the hell?"

After losing to Indianapolis on Oct. 22, left tackle Chris Samuels was one of the last players to leave the locker room. The Redskins weren't winning the pit fight. They had been getting pushed around since the Giants game. "When," Samuels said, "are we going to stop sissy blocking?"

Samuels yelled in frustration to Bugel, telling him to let the offensive line carry the Redskins, pounding defenses as they did in last season's final month. "Put it on us," Samuels told Bugel soon after the Gibbs speech.

Bugel obliged. "I told them, 'Okay,' " Bugel said, " 'but your mouths are writing a pretty big check. You guys better be able to cash it.' "

'We'll Get There'

Some in the Redskins organization believe Saunders wasn't the problem. The term "Redskins football," they said, is just a code word to resist Saunders's new schemes, the term "AFC-style" to describe Saunders's offense merely a way to fight change.

"Let me tell you about Al," a Redskins coach said late in the season. "His game plan is solid. His passing game is awesome, if they'd let it work. The running game isn't that different than it was. The bottom line was that those guys weren't blocking the way they're blocking now. That whole thing that the AFC isn't physical, really, is a bunch of BS. Football is football. You either hit or get hit. Those guys decided to start hitting."

Moreover, although the offensive line may have wanted to return to power football, the Saunders way had won more games than Gibbs had since his return from retirement in 2004.

"It's 2006. It's a passing league," said one league official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he did not want to be seen as being publicly critical of Gibbs. "Can anyone really play smash-mouth all the time anymore?"

When it came to Brunell, Saunders was conflicted. If Saunders was convinced the job was harder than he had anticipated, he also knew that Brunell was in a vise. Gibbs and Saunders may have originated from the same coaching tree, but Collins was right: Their offenses were completely different. Brunell would need a year to learn the Saunders offense, time he did not have.

Even in Brunell's best moment of the year, when he completed an NFL-record 22 consecutive passes in a 31-15 win at Houston on Sept. 24, Saunders offered a mixed response. Brunell had perfectly executed the game plan Saunders had built for him. But Saunders also knew that his offense was optimized for longer, downfield passes, not for the short passing game at which Brunell, 36, excelled.

During the October losing streak, change was coming, and the rough blueprint was this: If the Redskins reached six losses before Thanksgiving, Gibbs would make the switch. He would replace Brunell with Campbell.

During the Oct. 29 bye week, Collins and Campbell both took extra work but had no idea Gibbs and Saunders had a timetable for replacing Brunell. Meantime, to the Redskins' inner circle, it was clear Gibbs did not want to replace Brunell. During those weeks, even owner Daniel Snyder would periodically ask Gibbs what he planned to do at quarterback. After the Redskins lost to Indianapolis on Oct. 22, sources close to Saunders said he wanted to approach Gibbs and suggest he start Collins.

"If you want to win games now," sources said Saunders told Gibbs, "Todd is the guy."

What was the harm? The Redskins were 2-5 and in a weak conference. Perhaps Collins could keep the Redskins in the race. If Washington was still interested in winning ballgames, Saunders might have thought, Collins was the better choice. He knew the system. He had NFL experience, and the team had nothing to lose.

Gibbs announced the change Nov. 13, a day after the Redskins were creamed, 27-3, in Philadelphia. The Redskins were 3-6. The magic number had been reached. To Redskins coaches, it was an example of a coach getting too close to one of his players. Saunders floated Collins's name but did not actively lobby Gibbs to play him, sources said.

"I completely understood and agreed with the decision," Saunders said of the decision to name Campbell the starter. "They paid a lot of money for Jason. They traded in the draft to get him. They had a lot invested in him. The time was right to see what the young man could do. I feel bad for Todd because he sort of got caught in the crosswinds. Decisions were being made that affected him that he really could not control."

Saunders says he is undeterred.

In the running game, he felt vindicated this season. Under his guidance, Betts became a 1,000-yard running back. If the feeling going into the season had been that the defense would keep the Redskins in contention, it was Saunders's offense that had the better year and will enter next season with fewer questions surrounding it.

During an interview, Saunders made it clear that he is convinced that his system can work.

"All I want to do is win for Joe Gibbs. Is the job exactly what I thought it would be? I don't really want to get into that," Saunders said. "I have confidence we'll get there. In fact, I know we'll get there.

"I would be lying, though," Saunders added, "if I said I thought it was going to be this difficult."