Different Season, Same Trap

[SirClintonPortis]

Shanahan is from the Walsh coaching tree. If there's anything difficult about learning a new playbook, it's the "language" part of it. It's highly doubtful Shanahan simply rejected the general "language" scheme of the Walsh O, such as colors defining a formation. Really, they could be considered "dialects" like British English and American English are.

There is at least one news report where it can be safe to infer that he is well ahead of the curve if Kelly or Cooley was the one who said it was like he has been here for the last couple of years.

[Skinny Tee]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

Shanahan is from the Walsh coaching tree. If there's anything difficult about learning a new playbook, it's the "language" part of it. It's highly doubtful Shanahan simply rejected the general "language" scheme of the Walsh O, such as colors defining a formation. Really, they could be considered "dialects" like British English and American English are.

There is at least one news report where it can be safe to infer that he is well ahead of the curve if Kelly or Cooley was the one who said it was like he has been here for the last couple of years.

Well let's hope when he's on the field he'll know the "dialect" for "Duck!", "Look out!", and "How many fingers am I holding up?".

...You can't tell me that we're going to have a parallel scheme to what Reid is running with the eagles, especially with the reliance on Westbrook & the pass receiving RB's through much of the latter years. This guy is going to have to through a learning curve whether it be personnel, scheme or both.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by Skinny Tee

Well let's hope when he's on the field he'll know the "dialect" for "Duck!", "Look out!", and "How many fingers am I holding up?".

...You can't tell me that we're going to have a parallel scheme to what Reid is running with the eagles, especially with the reliance on Westbrook & the pass receiving RB's through much of the latter years. This guy is going to have to through a learning curve whether it be personnel, scheme or both.

Favre certainly had trouble jumping from Sherman's WCO variant to Childress's Philly-based WCO, oh wait, he skipped training camp and STILL put up a monster season....
Then you also wonder how was Jeff Garcia even considered by all those other WCO teams after he left San Francisco. They playbook is simply too foreign and they never would sign him. O wait....

And if the dialect analogy is not satisfactory, perhaps an analogy of first learning Latin accelerating one's ability to learn Italian or any other Romance language is more suitable for your tastes.
What you're saying is more like McNabb is learning Latin and then learning something completely unrelated like Chinese or ancient Egyptian. Something utterly farfetched and ridiculous.

[Skinny Tee]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

Favre certainly had trouble jumping from Sherman's WCO variant to Childress's Philly-based WCO, oh wait, he skipped training camp and STILL put up a monster season....
Then you also wonder how was Jeff Garcia even considered by all those other WCO teams after he left San Francisco. They playbook is simply too foreign and they never would sign him. O wait....

And if the dialect analogy is not satisfactory, perhaps an analogy of first learning Latin accelerating one's ability to learn Italian or any other Romance language is more suitable for your tastes.
What you're saying is more like McNabb is learning Latin and then learning something completely unrelated like Chinese or ancient Egyptian. Something utterly farfetched and ridiculous.

What I am more speaking about is fundamentals in scheme and not language of the WCO. The eagles offense relied heavily on short passes to a shifty RB coming out of the backfield. What he won't have here is the same offensive objectives of the short passes to pass catching RB's.

Brian Westbrook's Receptions vs. Clinton Portis's Receptions

2004 - 73 --------------------------> 2004 - 40
2005 - 61 --------------------------> 2005 - 30
2006 - 77 --------------------------> 2006 - 17* (8 games)
2007 - 90 --------------------------> 2007 - 47
2008 - 54 --------------------------> 2008 - 28

Shanahan's RB Receptions

2004 - Droughns & Griffin ----> 42
2005 - Bell & Anderson ------> 36
2006 - T. Bell & M. Bell ------> 44
2007 - Young & Sapp(FB) ---> 49
2008 - Hillis & Bell & Pittman -> 34


Doesn't matter what language you use, McNabb is adapting to a different focus in Shanahan's system. He's a veteran who will be equipped to do so, that's why Shanny wants him, but nevertheless he'll be dealing with a learning curve come time for training camp.

[djnemo65]

Am I missing all these bullish prediction threads? Sounds like most fans are calling between 7 and 9 wins, which sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Although I do bristle at Saden and Sandtrap's mention of the Redskins' past blunders in this context, as if the poor personal decisions of past regimes has anything to do with the direction being taken by an entirely new management team. What, should Shanahan never sign any veterans just because we overpaid Deion Sanders 10 years ago? Boswell's most recent article does a pretty bang up job anticipating and eviscerating Saden's implied argument: that the signing of McNabb constitutes another instance of "overpaying for veterans in their twilight years," when in fact NFL history suggests it should be viewed very differently.

[CRedskinsRule]

I think it is completely realistic to think that Shanahan (Kyle since he will be calling plays) will be able to quickly get on the same page with McNabb. Both Kyle and Donovan are going to work with each other, and with Mike to find a comfort zone of play calling. As for the line, McNabbs lines have had issues year in and year out, not to the extent of our 2009, but again, I think we can confidently expect that our line will be upgraded from last year. No coach of Mike Shanahan's stature is going to let that same type of line play repeat itself.
In the end, we will be more competitive in games, but we certainly don't know how that will show itself in terms of win/loss count yet.

[Mechanix544]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I think it is completely realistic to think that Shanahan (Kyle since he will be calling plays) will be able to quickly get on the same page with McNabb. Both Kyle and Donovan are going to work with each other, and with Mike to find a comfort zone of play calling. As for the line, McNabbs lines have had issues year in and year out, not to the extent of our 2009, but again, I think we can confidently expect that our line will be upgraded from last year. No coach of Mike Shanahan's stature is going to let that same type of line play repeat itself.
In the end, we will be more competitive in games, but we certainly don't know how that will show itself in terms of win/loss count yet.

very nice post. agreed.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by RememberRFK

So, you are saying because of THOSE statistics, we can expect more of the same?

If anything, because of those stats, the major upgrade in front office, coaching and QB (and hopefully O-line) should make it very easy to become an elite NFL team quickly.

Zorn wasn't exactly great late in games. (cue the swinging gate play clip)

Even before him, name a Redskins QB since 2000 as capable as McNabb. Yes, even I can concede Campbell is not as good.

[horse]

Originally Posted by Skinny Tee

A lot of those close win/loss games came against teams that didn't end the year with more than 4 wins.

The only way you can truly be excited about this team and its prospects beyond this year is if you're a cowboy, giant or eagle fan. McNabb went to the Pro Bowl as an eagle, not as a Redskin. We know what he can do on the eagles roster but how does that translate to ours?

I don't know why many Skins fans are transferring 100% of his talents and output immediately to our team. We're NOT getting the eagles McNabb, we're getting a McNabb that will play for the Redskins, meaning he will go through a steep learning curve that will be hindered due to our gross lack of offensive linemen help.

Even if we brought in 3 time SB champion, Tom Brady, we wouldn't have the scheme that he was implementing in NE. McNabb's output is going to be drastically different on the Skins. You can say his output will increase coming to a new team but from the looks of our OL and the 3 gaping holes just on our starting line I'd say it's doubtful.


For all those seeing the draft as the answer to our OL problems remember that Okung or any other rookie LT will simply be neutralizing the loss of Chris Samuels. If you remember the start of '09 our OL still sucked when Samuels was able bodied and starting. Now put a standout rookie there and still keep 2 gaping holes on the line and tell me what are McNabb's prospects for this year?

So....what's all the excitement about again?

We're excited because so many times having a proven QB is the difference between winning and losing especially the close games.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by GMScud

I think McNabb will get up to speed very quickly. He knows the terminology of the system, he just has to get used to a balanced attack instead of throwing 70% of the time.

I do agree about all the elation around his signing. You've got wonder if Vinny did this what everyone's reaction would be. Another high priced, past his prime vet brought in for high draft pick(s).... Granted it's a qb, but still.

On the low end I'd say 7 wins, on the high end I'd say 10.

I was going to say something similar. It's still the WCO, just a slightly different version that focuses on the running game. The verbage is only slightly different like if an American and an Englishman were to engage in a conversation. There might be a couple of words that mean something else, but for the most part they would understand each other.

Example: If an Englishman said that he wanted to blow a fag, the American might be taken back by that statement. Later the American will learn that blowing a fag is slang for smoking a cigarette...McNabb will be fine.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by Skinny Tee

What I am more speaking about is fundamentals in scheme and not language of the WCO. The eagles offense relied heavily on short passes to a shifty RB coming out of the backfield. What he won't have here is the same offensive objectives of the short passes to pass catching RB's.

Brian Westbrook's Receptions vs. Clinton Portis's Receptions

2004 - 73 --------------------------> 2004 - 40
2005 - 61 --------------------------> 2005 - 30
2006 - 77 --------------------------> 2006 - 17* (8 games)
2007 - 90 --------------------------> 2007 - 47
2008 - 54 --------------------------> 2008 - 28

Shanahan's RB Receptions

2004 - Droughns & Griffin ----> 42
2005 - Bell & Anderson ------> 36
2006 - T. Bell & M. Bell ------> 44
2007 - Young & Sapp(FB) ---> 49
2008 - Hillis & Bell & Pittman -> 34


Doesn't matter what language you use, McNabb is adapting to a different focus in Shanahan's system. He's a veteran who will be equipped to do so, that's why Shanny wants him, but nevertheless he'll be dealing with a learning curve come time for training camp.

Often in Phillies offense the wanted to get the recievers vertical to utilize DM's arm. In many cases that took all but the backs out of the play resulting in them getting more balls than most. At the same time it substituted for the running game. The WCO is the WCO is the WCO. It is the same thing it will just be used a little differently.

[Skinny Tee]

Originally Posted by Angry

Often in Phillies offense the wanted to get the recievers vertical to utilize DM's arm. In many cases that took all but the backs out of the play resulting in them getting more balls than most. At the same time it substituted for the running game. The WCO is the WCO is the WCO. It is the same thing it will just be used a little differently.

So Jim Zorn's is like Andy Reid's is like Mike Shanahan's?

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by Skinny Tee

So Jim Zorn's is like Andy Reid's is like Mike Shanahan's?

Considering that the playbook itself consists of the plays and how the play is described in words, they will probably have some overlap and most of the terminology will not be different, hence why I used a language analogy. Once the language is learned, learning new plays is not difficult at all since a word equates to something on the picture, such as a color represents a certain formation.

West Coast offense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
At the bottom in the links section are multiple examples of WCO playbooks from years past.

Zorn being a lousy playcaller simply means that he doesn't understand how to pick the right ones from the book or choose an appropriate order to call the plays in. The plays themselves may be just fine, but when the plays are called and how well they are disguised are also factors contributing to the plays success. And the talent on the team matters too, as a mediocre QB and crappy o-line are bound to be less awesome at running the plays than a team that is better at both or either position.

Zorn was using what Holmgren was using in Seattle when he first came here.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by Skinny Tee

So Jim Zorn's is like Andy Reid's is like Mike Shanahan's?

In general, that is not to say that there aren't slight variances. At their core they are all the same system with the same base principles. The WCO is just deployed differently by differnent teams based on player abilities.

Andy Reid had McNabb so he focused on the vertical passing aspect. Mike Shannahan had Terrell Davis, Clinton Portis and a host of other backs and liked to focus on the Zone running game. Zorn had one offensive lineman so he focused on running left and the 3 step sack.

When you break it down a QB of all 3 systems can tell you pretty much what "FB West Right Slot 372 'Y' Stick” means.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by Angry

"FB West Right Slot 372 'Y' Stick” means.]

And BREAK!