Don't take MY word for it...
 

If someone understands what 08 is talking about can you PLEASE explain it to me??

Where\'s WhoDat when you need him?

Don't take MY word for it...
 

Tap tap tap

Alright Saintsfan , I did not realize this had to be a \"Special education \" class for you .

Before we examine these side effects further, we should define what exactly the West Coast Offense is. As outlined to some extent by Walsh in his book, Finding the Winning Edge, and further refined from observational analysis, we find the following elements in the basic WCO used by Walsh and his successors with the 49ers:

Reliance on a quick, controlled passing game that takes advantage of quarterback and wide receiver reads on the fly
Multiple plays from multiple formations, with the object being to find a mismatch between an offensive player and a defender
A fairly equal mix of running and passing, although the pass seems to set up the run, which goes against the “conventional wisdom� of the NFL

Now your post Saintsfan :

The West Coast offense most certainly does NOT NOT NOT use the short timing-base routes to \"set up the running game\". Brother, you\'re dead wrong...as usual.

Bill Walsh States :

A fairly equal mix of running and passing, although the pass seems to set up the run, which goes against the “conventional wisdom� of the NFL

Sit back little boy and put your dunce cap on ......... :P

Don't take MY word for it...
 

For saintfan:

\"It\'s the ball-control passing game that sets up the running game,\" Jones said.
That Jones fella is Brent Jones, Pro-Bowl Tight End of the 49ers under Walsh. He is NOT talking about Holmgren\'s offense, but the original - strike that - the 49ers version of the West Coast offense. But although he has played in that system for years doesn\'t mean he isn\'t wrong. ;)

For everyone else
I completely agree the WCO uses the short pass (in part) to replace the running game. The short passing game DOES NOT set up the running game. Note: That\'s the original WCO from Cincinnati where Walsh didn\'t have a good rusher on his team. Roger Craig joined the 49ers in 1983 (Walsh had been head coach for 3 or 4 years already and the 49ers were already running the WCO). He simply was an added weapon which Walsh liked to use as a rusher as well. Walsh never used the WCO to set up the long pass, that\'s evolved later.

Very different styles of offenses are now called WCOs. Some just use it to describe a team that relies heavily on the pass (who in his right mind would describe the Rams with Warner and Faulk as a WCO?). The term has become quite meaningless on the pro-level. If it means anything it all it describes an offense that often uses quick passes without having a great running attack. The term is mostly used because it is so convenient.

Don't take MY word for it...
 

Pardon my ignorance, if the West coast offense was created because of a lack of a quality running back does that mean Roger Craig and Tom Rathman were less than quality?

Don't take MY word for it...
 

Now that we have established what the west coast offene is !! Who thinks we run a true west coast offense? I DON\'T. And I suspect 08 is the only one who does...

Don't take MY word for it...
 

Perhaps 08 (AKA Old School) needs to GO BACK to school:

Variation: A Definition of the Word from the Webster\'s New World Dictionary...

1. a varying; change in form, extent, etc
2. the degree of such change
3. a thing SOMEWHAT different from another of the same kind

What part of the word \"Variation\" do you people not understand?

[Edited on 24/10/2003 by saintfan]

Don't take MY word for it...
 

Craig and Rathman were brought in several years after the birth of the WCO.
But the WCO can still be run effectively without a stud RB.
A conventional offense typically can\'t.

The fiicking 49\'ers had the best of both stinking worlds.
A great offense with great players.

I HATE THE FIICKING 49\'ERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Don\'t ever mention them again.

[Edited on 24/10/2003 by tweeky]

Don't take MY word for it...
 

Noncloning

Note: That\'s the original WCO from Cincinnati where Walsh didn\'t have a good rusher on his team.

It was runningback by committee:

Rushing Rush Yds Avg TD
Jess Phillips 163 648 4.0 4
Paul Robinson 149 622 4.2 6
Essex Johnson 65 273 4.2 2
Virgil Carter 34 246 7.2 2

They still put up over 1700 yards on the ground.

While it may be true , Walsh did not have a good rusher on the Bengals at the time , the reason he set up the now west coast offense is because :

Walsh\'s concept came about in 1970, when he was offensive coach with the Bengals. The year before he had had one of the great rookie quarterbacks in NFL history, Greg Cook, a big, strongarmed kid who could also throw with touch. In 1969 Cook averaged 18 yards per completion, a mark that never has been approached since. The attack was long-ball, obviously. Even the tight ends got downfield. Bob Trumpy, Cook\'s No. 1 target, averaged 22.6 yards a catch, an unheard-of number for tight ends. Trumpy\'s backup, Chip Myers --Walsh often used two tight ends at once -- averaged 20.6. Even rookie Bruce Coslet, the third man in the rotation, got into the act, recording 39 yards on his one catch.

Then Cook went down with a shoulder injury. His career was finished. In came Virgil Carter in 1970 -- smaller, agile, quick-thinking. Carter was able to go through his progressions quickly and throw on the go; not blessed with a big arm, but accurate. So Walsh crafted an offense to suit him, a horizontal offense with a lot of motion and underneath routes and breakoff patterns, an attack that now goes by the misnomer \"West Coast Offense.\"


[Edited on 24/10/2003 by saintz08]

Don't take MY word for it...
 

Using the \"KISS\" method here for the benefit of Saintz08...

08 -- The Saints DO NOT run the \"Bill Walsh\" West Coast Offense.

08 -- The Saints run a variation of the West Coast Offense much like several other NFL teams

Now, we can debate all day long about what a true West Coast Offense really is, but what\'s the point anyway? Lets get right down to what it is you\'re trying to say? What\'s your point?

Don't take MY word for it...
 

I think what we have here is one member trying to get under the skin of 2 other members, and its working like Walshes WCO did back in the 80\'s.
But I could be wrong, again.