Holmgren and Committment to WCO
-
This question is for Shep, primarily, but also for others with knowledge and / or a viewpoint on this subject.
Shep - this is really a question that, I hope, you can clarify - if not answer - for me.
It has been said many times on this board that Holmgren is committed to the WCO given his early association with Bill Walsh and the 49ers. I'm not so sure about a commitment, however, given my understanding (or lack thereof) of Holmgren's coaching past.
If I remember correctly, Holmgren's GB team(s) played more of a vertical game - maybe more like Al Davis than Bill Walsh - taking advantage of Favre's strong are and capabilities to throw the ball in the cold NFC North weather.
At the same time, GB - and maybe this came after Holmgren's departure - evolved into a team driven by the running game, not the passing game. Although there was a blending of both, the WCO generally uses the pass to set up the run while, the Packers used the running game with Ahman Green, etc. more and more and relied less and less on the constant throwing of Favre.
In Seattle, Holmgren used Hasselback to bring the team to the SB and, Hasselback, was anything but a prototype WCO QB nor did the team rely on that model to win games. That team had a strong running game and more of a vertical passing game that what one would define as WCO.
If the above is true, I question whether or not Holmgren is really committed to WCO or, rather, uses the assets on his team to develop an offense that scores points and controls the clock.
If Holmgren was really sold on McCoy and the WCO, would he have waited until Round 6 to draft him? This is hypothetical but my gut tells me McCoy would have been drafted by the Browns much earlier if Holmgren envisioned him as a strong NFL candidate to run the WCO in Cleveland - a place quite different than the moderate temperatures of SF.
Bottom line is I really don't know how strongly Holmgren is committed to either the WCO or Colt McCoy. Maybe he is and, just maybe, he isn't. I wouldn't be shocked to see the Browns draft a 'franchise' big and strong-armed QB in the first round.
Feedback requested.
"God is great. Beer is good. People are crazy." -
This question is for Shep, primarily, but also for others with knowledge and / or a viewpoint on this subject.
Shep - this is really a question that, I hope, you can clarify - if not answer - for me.
It has been said many times on this board that Holmgren is committed to the WCO given his early association with Bill Walsh and the 49ers. I'm not so sure about a commitment, however, given my understanding (or lack thereof) of Holmgren's coaching past.
If I remember correctly, Holmgren's GB team(s) played more of a vertical game - maybe more like Al Davis than Bill Walsh - taking advantage of Favre's strong are and capabilities to throw the ball in the cold NFC North weather.
At the same time, GB - and maybe this came after Holmgren's departure - evolved into a team driven by the running game, not the passing game. Although there was a blending of both, the WCO generally uses the pass to set up the run while, the Packers used the running game with Ahman Green, etc. more and more and relied less and less on the constant throwing of Favre.
In Seattle, Holmgren used Hasselback to bring the team to the SB and, Hasselback, was anything but a prototype WCO QB nor did the team rely on that model to win games. That team had a strong running game and more of a vertical passing game that what one would define as WCO.
If the above is true, I question whether or not Holmgren is really committed to WCO or, rather, uses the assets on his team to develop an offense that scores points and controls the clock.
If Holmgren was really sold on McCoy and the WCO, would he have waited until Round 6 to draft him? This is hypothetical but my gut tells me McCoy would have been drafted by the Browns much earlier if Holmgren envisioned him as a strong NFL candidate to run the WCO in Cleveland - a place quite different than the moderate temperatures of SF.
Bottom line is I really don't know how strongly Holmgren is committed to either the WCO or Colt McCoy. Maybe he is and, just maybe, he isn't. I wouldn't be shocked to see the Browns draft a 'franchise' big and strong-armed QB in the first round.
Feedback requested.
This question is for Shep, primarily, but also for others with knowledge and / or a viewpoint on this subject.
Shep - this is really a question that, I hope, you can clarify - if not answer - for me.
It has been said many times on this board that Holmgren is committed to the WCO given his early association with Bill Walsh and the 49ers. I'm not so sure about a commitment, however, given my understanding (or lack thereof) of Holmgren's coaching past.
If I remember correctly, Holmgren's GB team(s) played more of a vertical game - maybe more like Al Davis than Bill Walsh - taking advantage of Favre's strong are and capabilities to throw the ball in the cold NFC North weather.
At the same time, GB - and maybe this came after Holmgren's departure - evolved into a team driven by the running game, not the passing game. Although there was a blending of both, the WCO generally uses the pass to set up the run while, the Packers used the running game with Ahman Green, etc. more and more and relied less and less on the constant throwing of Favre.
In Seattle, Holmgren used Hasselback to bring the team to the SB and, Hasselback, was anything but a prototype WCO QB nor did the team rely on that model to win games. That team had a strong running game and more of a vertical passing game that what one would define as WCO.
If the above is true, I question whether or not Holmgren is really committed to WCO or, rather, uses the assets on his team to develop an offense that scores points and controls the clock.
If Holmgren was really sold on McCoy and the WCO, would he have waited until Round 6 to draft him? This is hypothetical but my gut tells me McCoy would have been drafted by the Browns much earlier if Holmgren envisioned him as a strong NFL candidate to run the WCO in Cleveland - a place quite different than the moderate temperatures of SF.
Bottom line is I really don't know how strongly Holmgren is committed to either the WCO or Colt McCoy. Maybe he is and, just maybe, he isn't. I wouldn't be shocked to see the Browns draft a 'franchise' big and strong-armed QB in the first round.
Feedback requested.
Every where Holmgren has went he has been committed to what people call the West Coast System. Since San Fran though Holmgren has tweaked the offense to make changes. Its not just short passes to set up the run, but short passes that set up high percentage big plays like in Green Bay.
Holmgren seems to be 100% committed to Bill Walsh's philosophy, but Holmgren runs his own variations of it. Holmgren runs a more physical style of the west coast compared to Walshs 49ers which was finnese.
It seems like since Holmgren drafted Mccoy he would be commited to an extent. Look what wonders he worked with Matt Hassleback in Seattle.
-
the WCO stems from timing and basic QB mechanics to run the "Passing" part of it...Bill Walsh developed the WCO patterned after alot of what Sid Gilman and Al Davis did in the 50's and 60's but focusing on more intermediate routs wich would lend itself to the strengths of Joe Montana and Steve Young...there are variouse "versions" of the WCO in the NFL primarily composed or the root idea.Again...the WCO is setup and starts with QB mechanics and the passing game in general. Everyone keeps saying it was started by Paul Brown but truth in the matter it was not...Google west coast offense and do the reseaerch....there are many resources explaining it origin and influence.
-
This question is for Shep, primarily, but also for others with knowledge and / or a viewpoint on this subject.
Shep - this is really a question that, I hope, you can clarify - if not answer - for me.
It has been said many times on this board that Holmgren is committed to the WCO given his early association with Bill Walsh and the 49ers. I'm not so sure about a commitment, however, given my understanding (or lack thereof) of Holmgren's coaching past.
If I remember correctly, Holmgren's GB team(s) played more of a vertical game - maybe more like Al Davis than Bill Walsh - taking advantage of Favre's strong are and capabilities to throw the ball in the cold NFC North weather.
At the same time, GB - and maybe this came after Holmgren's departure - evolved into a team driven by the running game, not the passing game. Although there was a blending of both, the WCO generally uses the pass to set up the run while, the Packers used the running game with Ahman Green, etc. more and more and relied less and less on the constant throwing of Favre.
In Seattle, Holmgren used Hasselback to bring the team to the SB and, Hasselback, was anything but a prototype WCO QB nor did the team rely on that model to win games. That team had a strong running game and more of a vertical passing game that what one would define as WCO.
If the above is true, I question whether or not Holmgren is really committed to WCO or, rather, uses the assets on his team to develop an offense that scores points and controls the clock.
If Holmgren was really sold on McCoy and the WCO, would he have waited until Round 6 to draft him? This is hypothetical but my gut tells me McCoy would have been drafted by the Browns much earlier if Holmgren envisioned him as a strong NFL candidate to run the WCO in Cleveland - a place quite different than the moderate temperatures of SF.
Bottom line is I really don't know how strongly Holmgren is committed to either the WCO or Colt McCoy. Maybe he is and, just maybe, he isn't. I wouldn't be shocked to see the Browns draft a 'franchise' big and strong-armed QB in the first round.
Feedback requested.
If the above is true, I question whether or not Holmgren is really committed to WCO or, rather, uses the assets on his team to develop an offense that scores points and controls the clock.
John, i can't really respond to your original question, but i do know that the notion of a WCO is diluted throughout the NFL. Second, if the concept of a pure WCO still exisits, the idea that it can't be implemented under Mangini is total horseshit. If Holmgren mandates that a certain OC be installed for what he wants to do, i'm sure Mangini can coach them.
That aside, the idea of a "WCO" does provide Holmgren an easy and wimpy way out if he chooses to change HC's.
-
If the above is true, I question whether or not Holmgren is really committed to WCO or, rather, uses the assets on his team to develop an offense that scores points and controls the clock.
John, i can't really respond to your original question, but i do know that the notion of a WCO is diluted throughout the NFL. Second, if the concept of a pure WCO still exisits, the idea that it can't be implemented under Mangini is total horseshit. If Holmgren mandates that a certain OC be installed for what he wants to do, i'm sure Mangini can coach them.
That aside, the idea of a "WCO" does provide Holmgren an easy and wimpy way out if he chooses to change HC's.
John, i can't really respond to your original question, but i do know that the notion of a WCO is diluted throughout the NFL. Second, if the concept of a pure WCO still exisits, the idea that it can't be implemented under Mangini is total horseshit. If Holmgren mandates that a certain OC be installed for what he wants to do, i'm sure Mangini can coach them.
That aside, the idea of a "WCO" does provide Holmgren an easy and wimpy way out if he chooses to change HC's.
Good points, Ed, and HAPPY NEW YEAR!!
I'm not convinced of the old 'WCO' tag as it applies to Mike Holmgren and it would be - mostly fans and media (IMHO) - who would claim WCO was the reason for Mangini's potential demise in Cleveland.
As you know, I was thinking more about the players on the field rather than the HC.
Let's see what happens, or not.
GO UCONN!!
-
Good stuff, John. The cleanest answer is this: Holmgren has really only run one offense his entire life, the one he learned directly from the master (Bill Walsh)... and it's called the West Coast Offense. He uses that terminology and those formations. The basic principles are a fullback, a tailback who can catch, a TE, and usually usually only two WRs, even on passing downs. However, that part of the WCO has evolved.
But I agree: It's flexible enough to look pretty different per the quarterback. There generally are a lot of YAC throws, slants, stuff running across the field, so that's the kind of guys you look for... the type who can break an arm tackle and turn 10 yard passes into 30 yard gains.
I do think Holmgren believes in the WCO down to his core and supposedly he had a conversation with Gil Brandt who told Holmgren McCoy was born to be a WCO QB.
-
This question is for Shep, primarily, but also for others with knowledge and / or a viewpoint on this subject.
Shep - this is really a question that, I hope, you can clarify - if not answer - for me.
It has been said many times on this board that Holmgren is committed to the WCO given his early association with Bill Walsh and the 49ers. I'm not so sure about a commitment, however, given my understanding (or lack thereof) of Holmgren's coaching past.
If I remember correctly, Holmgren's GB team(s) played more of a vertical game - maybe more like Al Davis than Bill Walsh - taking advantage of Favre's strong are and capabilities to throw the ball in the cold NFC North weather.
At the same time, GB - and maybe this came after Holmgren's departure - evolved into a team driven by the running game, not the passing game. Although there was a blending of both, the WCO generally uses the pass to set up the run while, the Packers used the running game with Ahman Green, etc. more and more and relied less and less on the constant throwing of Favre.
In Seattle, Holmgren used Hasselback to bring the team to the SB and, Hasselback, was anything but a prototype WCO QB nor did the team rely on that model to win games. That team had a strong running game and more of a vertical passing game that what one would define as WCO.
If the above is true, I question whether or not Holmgren is really committed to WCO or, rather, uses the assets on his team to develop an offense that scores points and controls the clock.
If Holmgren was really sold on McCoy and the WCO, would he have waited until Round 6 to draft him? This is hypothetical but my gut tells me McCoy would have been drafted by the Browns much earlier if Holmgren envisioned him as a strong NFL candidate to run the WCO in Cleveland - a place quite different than the moderate temperatures of SF.
Bottom line is I really don't know how strongly Holmgren is committed to either the WCO or Colt McCoy. Maybe he is and, just maybe, he isn't. I wouldn't be shocked to see the Browns draft a 'franchise' big and strong-armed QB in the first round.
Feedback requested.
.
If Holmgren was really sold on McCoy and the WCO, would he have waited until Round 6 to draft him? This is hypothetical but my gut tells me McCoy would have been drafted by the Browns much earlier if Holmgren envisioned him as a strong NFL candidate to run the WCO in Cleveland - a place quite different than the moderate temperatures of SF.
Bottom line is I really don't know how strongly Holmgren is committed to either the WCO or Colt McCoy. Maybe he is and, just maybe, he isn't. I wouldn't be shocked to see the Browns draft a 'franchise' big and strong-armed QB in the first round.
Feedback requested.
We drafted McCoy in the third round not the sixth.
-
.
If Holmgren was really sold on McCoy and the WCO, would he have waited until Round 6 to draft him? This is hypothetical but my gut tells me McCoy would have been drafted by the Browns much earlier if Holmgren envisioned him as a strong NFL candidate to run the WCO in Cleveland - a place quite different than the moderate temperatures of SF.
Bottom line is I really don't know how strongly Holmgren is committed to either the WCO or Colt McCoy. Maybe he is and, just maybe, he isn't. I wouldn't be shocked to see the Browns draft a 'franchise' big and strong-armed QB in the first round.
Feedback requested.
We drafted McCoy in the third round not the sixth.
If Holmgren was really sold on McCoy and the WCO, would he have waited until Round 6 to draft him? This is hypothetical but my gut tells me McCoy would have been drafted by the Browns much earlier if Holmgren envisioned him as a strong NFL candidate to run the WCO in Cleveland - a place quite different than the moderate temperatures of SF.
Bottom line is I really don't know how strongly Holmgren is committed to either the WCO or Colt McCoy. Maybe he is and, just maybe, he isn't. I wouldn't be shocked to see the Browns draft a 'franchise' big and strong-armed QB in the first round.
Feedback requested.
We drafted McCoy in the third round not the sixth.
I don't think he was being serous when he said that we got him in the sixth and was just making a point in saying that we would have taken him in the 2nd instead of risking losing him with with where he was actually drafted. I will say though that I think Holmgren held off having Heckert draft McCoy sooner (McCoy was the only player where Holmgren flashed his badge to Heckert, pulled rank and said draft this guy) because at the time he didn't know if the WCO would even be ran here in cleveland. Remember he kept Mangini for the same reason he has kept Deboll and Ryan, because he wanted to see if their systems worked. So far this season he has learned the Daboll's offense doesn't work and that Ryan's defense does. So now it will be Holmgren's job to hire a WCO coordinator (we already have on working in the office) and possible a head coach who's focus is the WCO.
Also for some reason this guy makes it seem that weather is going to be a factor for the west coast offense, making it seem like it won't work here because of the weather, but but cold weather isn't going to affect this offense.
-
[Also for some reason this guy makes it seem that weather is going to be a factor for the west coast offense, making it seem like it won't work here because of the weather, but but cold weather isn't going to affect this offense.
Agreed, weather wont be a factor, as it wasnt in Greenbay and at Candlestick (swirling winds). I think no matter what happens we will be in a "WCO" next year. This year was not a West Coast Offense by any means. Just because you throw a couple of short passes doesnt mean you run a WCO..
I hated the fact they try to spin off Daboll as running some version of it.. COME ON...
-
[Also for some reason this guy makes it seem that weather is going to be a factor for the west coast offense, making it seem like it won't work here because of the weather, but but cold weather isn't going to affect this offense.
Agreed, weather wont be a factor, as it wasnt in Greenbay and at Candlestick (swirling winds). I think no matter what happens we will be in a "WCO" next year. This year was not a West Coast Offense by any means. Just because you throw a couple of short passes doesnt mean you run a WCO..
I hated the fact they try to spin off Daboll as running some version of it.. COME ON...
[Also for some reason this guy makes it seem that weather is going to be a factor for the west coast offense, making it seem like it won't work here because of the weather, but but cold weather isn't going to affect this offense.
Agreed, weather wont be a factor, as it wasnt in Greenbay and at Candlestick (swirling winds). I think no matter what happens we will be in a "WCO" next year. This year was not a West Coast Offense by any means. Just because you throw a couple of short passes doesnt mean you run a WCO..
I hated the fact they try to spin off Daboll as running some version of it.. COME ON...
Dabs only runs what mangini lets him run why do you think mangini brought dabs with him?
So when we talk dabs going bye bye we need to add the idiot who hired him and then vouched for him to holmgren, mangini is bent on running the offense his way as can be evidenced by the jets OC mangini strangles offenses to death and browns fans dont even see it such little things as no screen plays or variety in the offense either player rotation or plays and its all mangini incorporated and approved...
As far as WCO in mangini's offense i really dont see it all i see is power left, power right, power over center, punt...
-
@junkyard-dawg said:
Actually it was. The "WCO" was the offense Paul Brown ran here in Cleveland in the 1940's and 1950's before taking it to Cinci. Walsh has stated it, Holmgren has stated it and it's factual. Go watch some old school Browns games and see for yourself, the masters at it aren't handing credit to someone else for no reason.nope...All walsh learned and studied under Brown were in game strategies in fact Bernie Kosar coined the phrase West Coast Ofeense...read this link...it will tell you where it came from.
"The Walsh offense owes much to the past. As a Raiders' assistant in 1966, Walsh learned under Al Davis and John Rauch, who was the Raider's head coach. Raiders football was based on the theories of Sid Gillman. Al Davis had taken Gillman one step further. This system became the basis of Walsh's offense.
Gillman brought refinement to the game. Every technique and skill was isolated. In the Raiders organization, Walsh had no barriers to restrict creativity. It was a fully dimensional approach. For example, a system was developed for offensive line blocking that used almost all conceivable blocking combinations. It took time to learn it, but when the linemen mastered it they were well equipped to handle any situation.
The pass offense included an almost unlimited variety of pass patterns as well as a system of calling them. Coach Walsh used backs and tightends more than anybody in the NFL in his passing game".
-
No two playbooks in the NFL are identical, regardless of coaches backgrounds.
An offense has to be built around the personnel, especially the quarterback, and not the other way around.
I don't care what the base system or teminology is called, our offense next year has to be built around Colt's strengths.
-
If Holmgren was really sold on McCoy and the WCO, would he have waited until Round 6 to draft him? This is hypothetical but my gut tells me McCoy would have been drafted by the Browns much earlier if Holmgren envisioned him as a strong NFL candidate to run the WCO in Cleveland - a place quite different than the moderate temperatures of SF.
Bottom line is I really don't know how strongly Holmgren is committed to either the WCO or Colt McCoy. Maybe he is and, just maybe, he isn't. I wouldn't be shocked to see the Browns draft a 'franchise' big and strong-armed QB in the first round.
Feedback requested.
We drafted McCoy in the third round not the sixth.
I don't think he was being serous when he said that we got him in the sixth and was just making a point in saying that we would have taken him in the 2nd instead of risking losing him with with where he was actually drafted. I will say though that I think Holmgren held off having Heckert draft McCoy sooner (McCoy was the only player where Holmgren flashed his badge to Heckert, pulled rank and said draft this guy) because at the time he didn't know if the WCO would even be ran here in cleveland. Remember he kept Mangini for the same reason he has kept Deboll and Ryan, because he wanted to see if their systems worked. So far this season he has learned the Daboll's offense doesn't work and that Ryan's defense does. So now it will be Holmgren's job to hire a WCO coordinator (we already have on working in the office) and possible a head coach who's focus is the WCO.
Also for some reason this guy makes it seem that weather is going to be a factor for the west coast offense, making it seem like it won't work here because of the weather, but but cold weather isn't going to affect this offense.
Hillis-iz-Boss said:
I don't think he was being serous when he said that we got him in the sixth .........Actually, I was serious but I was wrong. I do remember watching the draft results and thinking how the Browns let McCoy slide.
A 3rd pick is a legitimate pick with expectations of becoming an NFL player.
However, I still wonder about the upcoming draft.
FWIW, I'd like to see Mangini and McCoy get extended.
-
Hillis-iz-Boss said:
I don't think he was being serous when he said that we got him in the sixth .........Actually, I was serious but I was wrong. I do remember watching the draft results and thinking how the Browns let McCoy slide.
A 3rd pick is a legitimate pick with expectations of becoming an NFL player.
However, I still wonder about the upcoming draft.
FWIW, I'd like to see Mangini and McCoy get extended.
Actually, I was serious but I was wrong. I do remember watching the draft results and thinking how the Browns let McCoy slide.
A 3rd pick is a legitimate pick with expectations of becoming an NFL player.
However, I still wonder about the upcoming draft.
FWIW, I'd like to see Mangini and McCoy get extended.
I don't want to see either of them get extended! Why waste the money when Mangini has one year left on his contract and there is a 50/50 chance he will be fired anyway, and why give Colt an extension when he has 4 years on his contract and just passed a bonus clause that will next him $600,000 more in his 3rd or 4th year of play (i'm also not going to throw all my eggs in one basket with him just yet).
-
We'll see how Mallett does Tuesday night. I'm sure Holmgren, Haskell, and Heckert will be watching.
-
McCoy ran primarily a spread option offense at Texas. That uses more receivers and usually includes more deep balls than the WCO. Personally I'd love to see the Browns run either/both but each of those offenses require having a smart, fast-thinking QB, an oline that gives the QB time and having a solid stable of receivers and good TE's. As was earlier stated, good FB is also required.
-
No two playbooks in the NFL are identical, regardless of coaches backgrounds.
An offense has to be built around the personnel, especially the quarterback, and not the other way around.
I don't care what the base system or teminology is called, our offense next year has to be built around Colt's strengths.
No two playbooks in the NFL are identical, regardless of coaches backgrounds.
An offense has to be built around the personnel, especially the quarterback, and not the other way around.
I don't care what the base system or teminology is called, our offense next year has to be built around Colt's strengths.
McCoy is a career backup QB.As evident the last 3 to 4 games.Passing 5 to 10 yards to a TE and RB won't win many games.He has been unable to pass down field in December and January.Lets not forget how great Brian Sipe was,yet he never won a playoff game.
-
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login