Should we ditch the West Coast offense?

by Blackacre on Mar 16, 2007 10:29 PM EDT Comment 4 comments

or Reid's version of it? I'm tired of hearing how difficult our offense is for receivers. Here's a suggestion: make it simpler. I don't remember Colts, Steelers or Patriots receivers talking about how hard their offense is.

In fact, I've looked at all of the SB winners after 1981, which is when the 49ers won their first SB and when the WCO began to make its way through the NFL. The 49ers won 5 SBs with it, but no other team has won more than one except Denver, who ran the ball a lot with Terrell Davis anyway. Green Bay and Tampa Bay won a SB each with the WCO, although I discount Tampa Bay's championship because the Raiders were too lazy to change their offense which Jon Gruden already knew in and out.

So in the last 25 years, only four teams have won with the WCO. That's not that impressive to me. Look at the teams who have won without it in the past 25 years: Colts, Patriots, Steelers, Ravens, Cowboys, Redskins, Giants, Rams, Raiders and the Bears. I think we all agree that we need to have a more balanced attack like we did last year and stop throwing the ball 60-70% of the time.

I'm not saying Reid hasn't been successful with his version of the WCO. But I don't think we need to use his version of the WCO or any version of the WCO to be successful. We have a big offensive line (by the way, Denver has a smaller line and they continue to have 1,000 yard backs year after year) that should be beating up the defense and controlling the clock, rather than spending so much time in pass protection. We can do better on offense.

I'd like to hear what everyone thinks. I had to get that off my chest.

0 recs | Comment 4 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

WCO vs. Other

Actually, lets be a little more precise. Billick and the Ravens were a West Coast team at least in theory. 10 Super Bowls total.

Now compare to other lines, such as the Coryell/Gibbs/Turner/Martz offense. That produced Super Bowls by the Redskins, Rams, and Cowboys. 6 Super Bowls total.

The Parcells/Belichick line has the Giants and Patriots. 5 Super Bowls.

The Dungy Colts are off the Chuck Noll tree.

The Cowher Steelers are off the Schottenheimer tree.

The West Coast Coaching Tree also produced Super Bowl losers with the Bengals, Packers, Titans, Giants, Raiders, Eagles, Seahawks.

Other major Super Bowl Loser groupings since 1980 come from:

George Allen (4 by the Bills, 1 by the Eagles - also 1 earlier by Allen himself)

Tom Landy (3 by the Broncos, 1 by the Falcons courtesy of Dan Reeves - also 3 earlier by Landry)

Clearly, the Bill Walsh WCO Coaching Tree has been the most prolific in terms of Super Bowl wins and Super Bowl appearances.

by Andrew on Mar 17, 2007 1:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I disagree a bit

Billick likes to throw the ball down the field like when he was with the Vikings. He didn't have the personnel to do it with the Ravens, but their defense was probably the best that year.

by Blackacre on Mar 17, 2007 6:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I prefer

keeping it, since all of our offensive players are geared around the WCO type of offense. To change philosophies within a WCO would be feasible (and, indeed, probably a good idea). We could still have a, say, 55-45 run/pass ratio and leave it at West Coast, and be every bit as prolific. But I think you're looking at the trees and missing the forest -- the Eagles have had over Reid's tenure one of the best scoring offenses in the league. Why mess with success? Indeed, the only thing that seems to really need urgent fixing is the defense, which is known as one of the more complex in the game. If you're going to talk about simplifying, why not talk about the aspect of our game that is so complex that only 1/4th of the linebackers we get seem to get a grasp on it?

by Alon on Mar 18, 2007 1:46 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

What is the west coast offense?

It's a set of terminology and not much more. Typically recievers do have more responsibility to change their patterns based on coverage. FOr instance, instead of a play calling for a 10 yard out... a reciever is given a set of options based on coverage to run every play. That and the terminology are what is sometimes difficult for a reciever to pick up. Frankly, if a guy can't be relied on to react to coverage, is he that smart of a football player? Is it really the fault of the offensive system or is it that the player hasn't done his homework or just plain dumb? Is this why they went out and signed a guy that scored 48 out of 50 on the wonderlic?

It's not an offense that demands more passing than running. It's not an offense that means you can't throw down the field. That's a perception I think we all got early on even before Andy took over.

No team threw downfield more than the Eagles last year. As was previously stated, the Broncos and Mike Shanahan ran their way to a title using the west coast offense. When Mary Morningwheg was the offensive coordinator of the 49ers in teh WCO they led the NFL in rushing. It's a set of terminology first and foremost. From that point on it's a particular coaches' philosphy that depends on how it's used. I fail to see how that's different than any other system.

In the end, it's not the WCO that dictates how this teams' offense is run. Andy Reid does. Frankly, I don't think the west coast offense makes this team any more or less likely to win a title. Plenty of teams have won superbowls with it, plenty have not. It's coaching and personel that wins superbowls... and defense of course.

Bleeding Green Nation Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on Mar 19, 2007 9:10 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs