System article by Clayton.

[Art]

An interesting read. The part that fits as it relates to the Redskins is where it says if the players don't fit the system, forget about it .

http://espn.go.com/nfl/columns/clayton_john/1256879.html

[Larry]

Of course, when he says that 6 of the top 10 QBs have been there for multiple years, is that because longevity leads to success, or does success lead to longevity?

(I think I agree with your point, though. If Marty were committed to playing zone defense, would he fire Champ and Smoot, because they don't fit his system, and then start shopping for replacements? The WCO might be a great idea. But maybe we should stick with what works here, and spend another year drafting people who fit the new system).

[ by Larry on September 29, 2001.]

[Art]

Honestly, this team could run a successful WCO, as much as I hate that system. If we decided to model ourselves after Oakland and simply be a power running team, even with short passes, we could succeed. We'd be better suited to modeling our offense after Minnesota, which is based on deep passes and stretch run plays.

But, our WCO is an odd one. Even the formations aren't what you'd consider WCO. Going two tight ends, as we've done a great deal of, isn't really a WCO set. We've done very little three-receiver sets and we've done no flairs out to a back. I'm still trying to grasp what we're seeing but, what it is disturbs me, because I'm not sure any personnel group could actually do it well.

For two games, the entire offensive game plan was easy to read and totally without imagination. The WCO, as we saw with Green Bay, creates situations in which you get mismatches and allow yards after the catch. That slant for the touchdown wasn't against Bailey. It was against Shade. Shade was creeping up. His job at the snap was to be from 5 to 7 yards off the ball. He was supposed to be there for the short curl or slant. Bailey was positioned for the out or the deep play. Shade never got there and the WCO had accomplished what it tries to do, in creating a situation where a play overmatches a defensive formation.

Marty's going to be challenged to produce after these first two games and he'll be challenged to prove he can make it work here as he has in Cleveland and KC. Right now, we don't fit what he wants to do, but, I'm not sure right now we know what we're trying to do. That's my worry. If we had an idea what our offensive identity was we could at least identify a way to get better. But now, I don't think we know that.

------------------

Doom is in the box.

[TennesseeCarl]

I think you're on to it, Art. The WCO, in and of itself, isn't the villain. It's our version of it that sucks pond scum.

The short passes I've seen have not been slants - they've been 3 yard curls (and there's about no hope of getting yards after the catch on those). The power running game was working, albeit sporadically. Davis had a couple of runs where he just overpowered folks - you don't arm tackle the guy.

I felt that a lot of the problem was Jeff George - he just had no accuracy on the short passes. I don't know if that was intentional on his part to display his lack of enthusiasm for the system, but it looked terrible.

The problem is, isn't Tony Banks very, very similar to Jeff George?