Hillis And The Wco
-
I never said PB didnt have any influence on Walsh...of course he did...But it just seems that all of you want to make the WCO A direct bi-product of PB and its not...I dont care what any of you say...The link speaks for itesf...But somehow you all want PB to take credit for something Walsh developed from several Systems. All Im saying is what the article clearly demonstrates. The WCO is a bi-product of several offenses not just PB's. Everyone is trying to make it a PB/Cleveland thing...And the only real cleveland thing about it is Bernie Kosar is credited for actually giving the WCO its name.
-
I never said PB didnt have any influence on Walsh...of course he did...But it just seems that all of you want to make the WCO A direct bi-product of PB and its not...I dont care what any of you say...The link speaks for itesf...But somehow you all want PB to take credit for something Walsh developed from several Systems. All Im saying is what the article clearly demonstrates. The WCO is a bi-product of several offenses not just PB's. Everyone is trying to make it a PB/Cleveland thing...And the only real cleveland thing about it is Bernie Kosar is credited for actually giving the WCO its name.
I never said PB didnt have any influence on Walsh...of course he did...But it just seems that all of you want to make the WCO A direct bi-product of PB and its not...I dont care what any of you say...The link speaks for itesf...But somehow you all want PB to take credit for something Walsh developed from several Systems. All Im saying is what the article clearly demonstrates. The WCO is a bi-product of several offenses not just PB's. Everyone is trying to make it a PB/Cleveland thing...And the only real cleveland thing about it is Bernie Kosar is credited for actually giving the WCO its name.
Something you have to understand about Bill Walsh: he was the supreme egotist. He DID learn much of what was in the WCO from PB and Gillman, but he would never admit that directly. He wanted to take credit for something that he developed, yet, there was far less originality in his "WCO" than he took credit for. Yes, he modified and tinkered with the concepts that he got from PB and Gillman, but he sure as hell didn't invent the WCO out of the blue as sometimes he would like to suggest.
The thing that he did? He was successful. Yes, he was a good coach, but not the ultimate creator of that offense.
It would be like Reese's claiming they invented both chocolate and peanut butter. Well, they didn't invent either, they just put them together and it worked out well, which is pretty much what Walsh did. And it helped Walsh that he hired a pretty good cook by the name of Joe Montana. His offense wasn't working all that great when he had Steve DeBerg running it.
-
I never said PB didnt have any influence on Walsh...of course he did...But it just seems that all of you want to make the WCO A direct bi-product of PB and its not...I dont care what any of you say...The link speaks for itesf...But somehow you all want PB to take credit for something Walsh developed from several Systems. All Im saying is what the article clearly demonstrates. The WCO is a bi-product of several offenses not just PB's. Everyone is trying to make it a PB/Cleveland thing...And the only real cleveland thing about it is Bernie Kosar is credited for actually giving the WCO its name.
Something you have to understand about Bill Walsh: he was the supreme egotist. He DID learn much of what was in the WCO from PB and Gillman, but he would never admit that directly. He wanted to take credit for something that he developed, yet, there was far less originality in his "WCO" than he took credit for. Yes, he modified and tinkered with the concepts that he got from PB and Gillman, but he sure as hell didn't invent the WCO out of the blue as sometimes he would like to suggest.
The thing that he did? He was successful. Yes, he was a good coach, but not the ultimate creator of that offense.
It would be like Reese's claiming they invented both chocolate and peanut butter. Well, they didn't invent either, they just put them together and it worked out well, which is pretty much what Walsh did. And it helped Walsh that he hired a pretty good cook by the name of Joe Montana. His offense wasn't working all that great when he had Steve DeBerg running it.
Something you have to understand about Bill Walsh: he was the supreme egotist. He DID learn much of what was in the WCO from PB and Gillman, but he would never admit that directly. He wanted to take credit for something that he developed, yet, there was far less originality in his "WCO" than he took credit for. Yes, he modified and tinkered with the concepts that he got from PB and Gillman, but he sure as hell didn't invent the WCO out of the blue as sometimes he would like to suggest.
The thing that he did? He was successful. Yes, he was a good coach, but not the ultimate creator of that offense.
It would be like Reese's claiming they invented both chocolate and peanut butter. Well, they didn't invent either, they just put them together and it worked out well, which is pretty much what Walsh did. And it helped Walsh that he hired a pretty good cook by the name of Joe Montana. His offense wasn't working all that great when he had Steve DeBerg running it.
Agreed...DeBerg was a career back up for the better part of his career. But Im just simply saying consider all of the factors that went into it and Im not in any way trying to underscore Browns influence but like the article said credit was also given to Al Davis on John Rausch also who didnt have much to do with Paul Brown and nor did LaVelle Edwards who also was a big influence on Walsh.
-
Something you have to understand about Bill Walsh: he was the supreme egotist. He DID learn much of what was in the WCO from PB and Gillman, but he would never admit that directly. He wanted to take credit for something that he developed, yet, there was far less originality in his "WCO" than he took credit for. Yes, he modified and tinkered with the concepts that he got from PB and Gillman, but he sure as hell didn't invent the WCO out of the blue as sometimes he would like to suggest.
The thing that he did? He was successful. Yes, he was a good coach, but not the ultimate creator of that offense.
It would be like Reese's claiming they invented both chocolate and peanut butter. Well, they didn't invent either, they just put them together and it worked out well, which is pretty much what Walsh did. And it helped Walsh that he hired a pretty good cook by the name of Joe Montana. His offense wasn't working all that great when he had Steve DeBerg running it.
Agreed...DeBerg was a career back up for the better part of his career. But Im just simply saying consider all of the factors that went into it and Im not in any way trying to underscore Browns influence but like the article said credit was also given to Al Davis on John Rausch also who didnt have much to do with Paul Brown and nor did LaVelle Edwards who also was a big influence on Walsh.
Agreed...DeBerg was a career back up for the better part of his career. But Im just simply saying consider all of the factors that went into it and Im not in any way trying to underscore Browns influence but like the article said credit was also given to Al Davis on John Rausch also who didnt have much to do with Paul Brown and nor did LaVelle Edwards who also was a big influence on Walsh.
Like I said, it is like the Beatles and who influenced them: Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, Elvis Presley....even throw in Sophie Tucker.
The following is just a sampling of Paul Browns coaching tree:
Coaching treeThe following coaches either coached under or played for Paul Brown and were influenced at least to some degree by him and his football knowledge and offensive system:
Blanton Collier (coach under Paul Brown)
Weeb Ewbank (coach under Paul Brown)
Abe Gibron (player)
Sid Gillman (coach)
Otto Graham (player for Paul Brown)
Bill "Tiger" Johnson (coach under Paul Brown)
Chuck Noll (player for Paul Brown)
Ara Parseghian (player for Paul Brown)
Lou Saban (player for Paul Brown)
Don Shula (player for Paul Brown)
Bill Walsh (coach under Paul Brown)
Bruce Coslet (player and head coach under team President Paul Brown)
Sam Wyche (player and head coach under team President Paul Brown)
And let's face it, many of these guys have their own "coaching tree" which are a couple of generations removed. So, we can get biblical here. Paul Brown begat Sid Gillman who begat Bill Walsh who begat Mike Holmgren who begat Pat Shurmur. See how that works?
-
One thing I have learned from researching things is that Bill Parcells did not apparently learn his trade through the influences of the likes of Paul Brown, Lombardi, Landry, etc. that a lot of today's coaches came through.
His primary coaching influences actually came from the college ranks, and not necessarily football. His biggest influence in his coaching career came from none other than Bobby Knight, who actually was greatly influence by Woody Hayes. He also learned under Ray Perkins, who was coached by Bear Bryant. So that branch of coaching, which includes the likes of Bill Belichick, Tom Coughlin, Mangini, Crennell, Sean Payton et al came more from the collegiate ranks.
-
One thing I have learned from researching things is that Bill Parcells did not apparently learn his trade through the influences of the likes of Paul Brown, Lombardi, Landry, etc. that a lot of today's coaches came through.
His primary coaching influences actually came from the college ranks, and not necessarily football. His biggest influence in his coaching career came from none other than Bobby Knight, who actually was greatly influence by Woody Hayes. He also learned under Ray Perkins, who was coached by Bear Bryant. So that branch of coaching, which includes the likes of Bill Belichick, Tom Coughlin, Mangini, Crennell, Sean Payton et al came more from the collegiate ranks.
One thing I have learned from researching things is that Bill Parcells did not apparently learn his trade through the influences of the likes of Paul Brown, Lombardi, Landry, etc. that a lot of today's coaches came through.
His primary coaching influences actually came from the college ranks, and not necessarily football. His biggest influence in his coaching career came from none other than Bobby Knight, who actually was greatly influence by Woody Hayes. He also learned under Ray Perkins, who was coached by Bear Bryant. So that branch of coaching, which includes the likes of Bill Belichick, Tom Coughlin, Mangini, Crennell, Sean Payton et al came more from the collegiate ranks.
..I know...I also have that walsh coaching tree as My banner on another forum lol...And I was aware of Parcells background...Sam Rutigliano was from the Lombardi tree as well if Im not mistaken..but I think the over all point is football is all the same plays, its just a matter of likes and and application. And lets not understate what Brown brought to the game because every playbok has Paul Brown in there...id say pretty much the lions share...I thought he did more for the game than any other coach before or after him. Wich I dont understand why its called the Lombardi trophy...I thought it was one hell of a snub by the NFL.
-
I just think that you can really compare his physical abilities to Steven Jackson in St. Louis and look what he did last year under Shurmer. Plus Hillis still had 4.4 yards a carry while teams knew he was the Browns only offensive option. He should do fine next year with the pass taking heat off of him.
-
@king-ghoolie-lives said:
I don't think Hillis will again hit the 1000 yard mark. Roger Craig wasn't as big and he had more moves.
Again, don't get me wrong, I know he is a tough, strong bastard. IF the Browns had some other offensive weapons he could relaly be effective. As it is, I think he is going to get smothered in 2011.
I think the point of instituting this North-West Coast offense is to spread the ball around to more players; to get those wide receivers more involved in timing pass plays; to spread it around more to the tight ends and the backs; and, to open up more holes in the running game. I do not believe they are going to be running the ball up the gut on every play. This offense is supposed to be designed to improve the production of even our mediocre receiving corps.
-
@king-ghoolie-lives said:
I don't think Hillis will again hit the 1000 yard mark. Roger Craig wasn't as big and he had more moves.
Again, don't get me wrong, I know he is a tough, strong bastard. IF the Browns had some other offensive weapons he could relaly be effective. As it is, I think he is going to get smothered in 2011.
Ghooli stop trolling this forum. You have no idea what your talking about. Anything that is Browns your being negative on. Grow up.
-
@king-ghoolie-lives said:
I don't think Hillis will again hit the 1000 yard mark. Roger Craig wasn't as big and he had more moves.
Again, don't get me wrong, I know he is a tough, strong bastard. IF the Browns had some other offensive weapons he could relaly be effective. As it is, I think he is going to get smothered in 2011.
Ghooli stop trolling this forum. You have no idea what your talking about. Anything that is Browns your being negative on. Grow up.
Ghooli stop trolling this forum. You have no idea what your talking about. Anything that is Browns your being negative on. Grow up.
Well, Ghoolie is not a troll. He is an origninal on Browns message boards from the early days of the internet. And he does know a lot of what he is talking about, even though sometimes, like in this case, you or I might disagree with him.
-
Ghooli stop trolling this forum. You have no idea what your talking about. Anything that is Browns your being negative on. Grow up.
Well, Ghoolie is not a troll. He is an origninal on Browns message boards from the early days of the internet. And he does know a lot of what he is talking about, even though sometimes, like in this case, you or I might disagree with him.
Well, Ghoolie is not a troll. He is an origninal on Browns message boards from the early days of the internet. And he does know a lot of what he is talking about, even though sometimes, like in this case, you or I might disagree with him.
Is lack of knowledge is ridiculous. Here is 2 points. 1. He said Hillis should only touch the ball 5 to 10 times a game. 2. Hillis will never see 1,000 yards again. He is trolling.
-
Well, Ghoolie is not a troll. He is an origninal on Browns message boards from the early days of the internet. And he does know a lot of what he is talking about, even though sometimes, like in this case, you or I might disagree with him.
Is lack of knowledge is ridiculous. Here is 2 points. 1. He said Hillis should only touch the ball 5 to 10 times a game. 2. Hillis will never see 1,000 yards again. He is trolling.
Is lack of knowledge is ridiculous. Here is 2 points. 1. He said Hillis should only touch the ball 5 to 10 times a game. 2. Hillis will never see 1,000 yards again. He is trolling.
Well, you apparently don't understand the definition of "trolling" in sports message board parlance. Trolling is where fans of other teams come onto your team's board to stir up shit, like several of the so called Steeler fans that frequent this board.
Now, Ghoulie may stir up shit, but he is not a troll because he is a well know Browns fan. Any criticism he makes about the Browns is simply an earnest attempt to see that they get better. He may at times be a disagreeable old cuss, and sometimes wrongheaded (as we all may be at times) but he is not a troll.
-
Is lack of knowledge is ridiculous. Here is 2 points. 1. He said Hillis should only touch the ball 5 to 10 times a game. 2. Hillis will never see 1,000 yards again. He is trolling.
Well, you apparently don't understand the definition of "trolling" in sports message board parlance. Trolling is where fans of other teams come onto your team's board to stir up shit, like several of the so called Steeler fans that frequent this board.
Now, Ghoulie may stir up shit, but he is not a troll because he is a well know Browns fan. Any criticism he makes about the Browns is simply an earnest attempt to see that they get better. He may at times be a disagreeable old cuss, and sometimes wrongheaded (as we all may be at times) but he is not a troll.
Well, you apparently don't understand the definition of "trolling" in sports message board parlance. Trolling is where fans of other teams come onto your team's board to stir up shit, like several of the so called Steeler fans that frequent this board.
Now, Ghoulie may stir up shit, but he is not a troll because he is a well know Browns fan. Any criticism he makes about the Browns is simply an earnest attempt to see that they get better. He may at times be a disagreeable old cuss, and sometimes wrongheaded (as we all may be at times) but he is not a troll.
Out of respect for the board and you, I will give him a little more time before I will call him that then.
-
Well, you apparently don't understand the definition of "trolling" in sports message board parlance. Trolling is where fans of other teams come onto your team's board to stir up shit, like several of the so called Steeler fans that frequent this board.
Now, Ghoulie may stir up shit, but he is not a troll because he is a well know Browns fan. Any criticism he makes about the Browns is simply an earnest attempt to see that they get better. He may at times be a disagreeable old cuss, and sometimes wrongheaded (as we all may be at times) but he is not a troll.
Out of respect for the board and you, I will give him a little more time before I will call him that then.
Out of respect for the board and you, I will give him a little more time before I will call him that then.
Well, you can call Ghoolie whatever you want. A dick, a puke, a grumpy old man, a finook, whatever you want. Just not a troll because it is inapplicable. (of course, as was said about Rashard Mendenhall, you have free speech in this country, but you don't have freedom from consequences from your speech. Ghoulie has always seemed perfectly apt at extracting retribution)
-
Trolling is also when you're saying something you don't actually believe in to get people mad and to enjoy their reactions.
It's also a way to flee when an argument is failing, so you were wrong right? no problem just claim trolling. "I was just trolling guys".
I don't think ghoolie is trolling, I think he's saying what he believes in but I don't agree with him either.
-
Trolling is also when you're saying something you don't actually believe in to get people mad and to enjoy their reactions.
It's also a way to flee when an argument is failing, so you were wrong right? no problem just claim trolling. "I was just trolling guys".
I don't think ghoolie is trolling, I think he's saying what he believes in but I don't agree with him either.
Trolling is also when you're saying something you don't actually believe in to get people mad and to enjoy their reactions.
It's also a way to flee when an argument is failing, so you were wrong right? no problem just claim trolling. "I was just trolling guys".
I don't think ghoolie is trolling, I think he's saying what he believes in but I don't agree with him either.
That is not "trolling" That is "flaming".
-
Well, you apparently don't understand the definition of "trolling" in sports message board parlance. Trolling is where fans of other teams come onto your team's board to stir up shit, like several of the so called Steeler fans that frequent this board.
Now, Ghoulie may stir up shit, but he is not a troll because he is a well know Browns fan. Any criticism he makes about the Browns is simply an earnest attempt to see that they get better. He may at times be a disagreeable old cuss, and sometimes wrongheaded (as we all may be at times) but he is not a troll.
Out of respect for the board and you, I will give him a little more time before I will call him that then.
Out of respect for the board and you, I will give him a little more time before I will call him that then.
I'll say this from the moderator side. Ghoolie predates this forum- by several years. Oh, he can stir stuff up all right, and he often takes a contrarian point of view- but long term, he's been right more times than he's been wrong. And you can count on this- he is a true Browns fan, and a bunch of folks on this board have met him live and in person to back up that fact.
And it is possible that Hillis won't get 1,000 yards this year- the WCO and platooning him with Hardesty (assuming he's healthy) may well cut his total rushing yardage down.
-
Out of respect for the board and you, I will give him a little more time before I will call him that then.
I'll say this from the moderator side. Ghoolie predates this forum- by several years. Oh, he can stir stuff up all right, and he often takes a contrarian point of view- but long term, he's been right more times than he's been wrong. And you can count on this- he is a true Browns fan, and a bunch of folks on this board have met him live and in person to back up that fact.
And it is possible that Hillis won't get 1,000 yards this year- the WCO and platooning him with Hardesty (assuming he's healthy) may well cut his total rushing yardage down.
I'll say this from the moderator side. Ghoolie predates this forum- by several years. Oh, he can stir stuff up all right, and he often takes a contrarian point of view- but long term, he's been right more times than he's been wrong. And you can count on this- he is a true Browns fan, and a bunch of folks on this board have met him live and in person to back up that fact.
Right, Ghoulie can be a first class flamer by doing exactly what you say. (Hell, all of us old regulars can do that at times). But he is not a troll. He may be a troll in the short, squat, stinking, living under a bridge, wart infested, child stealing, goat sucking, feculent humanoid sense, (and we only call him that because we like him) but not in the internet message board sense.
And it is possible that Hillis won't get 1,000 yards this year- the WCO and platooning him with Hardesty (assuming he's healthy) may well cut his total rushing yardage down.
And there would be nothing wrong with that. Though, maybe in this WCO, he get 1200 yard and Hardesty get 700....if it is clicking right. No sense in putting any limit on what those two could possibly do in this offense, fair to say. I mean, there is no reason to surmise that the Browns as a team will only be able to gain a max 1200 yards on the ground that has to be divided between Hillis and Hardesty. Maybe in this offense they can pull off gaining 2000 yards rushing, and another 4000 passing. Why not? Isn't that what it is designed to do?
I don't know exactly what the 49ers or Packers or other teams that successfully ran the WCO got in total offense, but it wouldn't surprise me if it matched those type of numbers. Of course, you have to have the talent to carry it off.
-
Just a few stats on most well known successful teams that ran the WCO:
The 1989 49ers gained 4584 yards passing and 1966 yards rushing as a team that year
The 1994 49ers gained 4362 passing and 1897 rushing
The 1996 Packers gained 3938 passing and 1838 rushing.
These certainly are the kinds of numbers we could live with here, aren't they?
Last year the SB winning Packers gained 4355 passing and 1606 rushing.
The 2010 Cleveland Browns actually outrushed the Packers gaining 1646 rushing yards, but they only had 3202 passing yards. To me, the run game seems fairly adequate, maybe it only needs a couple of hundred yards boost. But we need about another 1000 yards out of our pass game to be on that level of offensive proficiency.
Now, maybe the presence of a healthy Hardesty and a continuing healthy Hillis can easily squeeze out that extra 200 yards on the ground. But where is that extra 1000 yards passing going to come from? The institution of the WCO alone? A full time Colt McCoy at QB? Gregg Little and Jordan Cameron? Enquiring minds want to know.
-
A solid right side of a line and a franchis WR (Little) to catch passes from Colt will hopefully do that. Not to mention this will also free up the other WR's. And of course, do not forget about our TE's Watson and Moore.
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