| Subject: Interesting |
Author:
Anthony49
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 02:22:43 01/11/03 Sat
Tank,
What I don't understand, is why you think 'Garciaball' and the 49'er offense have to be mutually exclusive.
It's not like Jeff Garcia is pleading with the coaches, "Please! Please throw out the entire playbook, that huge monstrosity of a thing that I have spent over 3 years studying like a madman and trying to commit to memory, I want you to scrap the whole friggin' thing and design an offense around me!"
All this talk of 'garciaball' vs. the 'WCO' all seems kind of silly to me.
First, the 'WCO' is a rather vague, general term. Ultimately, in of itself, it might not mean anything. Look at all of the offenses that have been labeled 'WCO' offenses by the NFL, and how different many of them have been, over the last 20 years.
It gets silly. There are as many 'WCO' offenses as there are teams in the NFL, and yet people talk about the 'WCO' like it were one offense.
What the 49'ers have done, and done quite successfully, since the Walsh era, is play ball-control efficient offense with a reliance on the short-passing game, eating clock, and controlling the time and tempo of the game. It has many variants, and most of the coaches from Walsh's coaching tree (damn near half the NFL at this point) have all their own philosophies and addendums.
Mooch, for his part, relies more on the running game than most, and firmly believes in balance, probably more than the others. If Mooch were guaranteed 4 yards a carry, I think he'd do nothing but run.
(And actually, I agree with that -- If the running game is working, there is no better way to win and no better way to play football ... but i digress).
All this ranting about Garcia and 'garciaball' just has me giggling a bit.
The 49'er offense isn't going to throw away its mammoth playbook and design a system around Garcia. And Mooch is not dumb enough to try and play a no-huddle offense fulltime. That's just silly.
Garcia HAS been playing the 49'er offense, as it's fulltime starter for 3 years running, 3 consecutive pro bowl appearances. He HAS been running the '49'er' offense, and has been doing it very well.
People point to different things to explain the different numbers in those 3 seasons, though to me the biggest correlation is in the team itself, and whether or not the team was in catch up mode.
Regardless.
Garcia is running the 49'er offense, has done it commendably well, and barring injury, will be the 49'er starter next season, and likely a couple seasons after that.
When Garcia talks about 'Garciaball' (a term he coined, which I think has been taken and run with), he simply means when things break down, he can freelance and make things happen.
The emphasis on *when* things break down, he can wing it, freelance, scramble, and make things happen.
Much like other 49'er QB's have done in the past. Call it 'firedrills', call it 'scrambling', call it 'garciaball'.
It's all essentially the same:
*when* things break down, the 49'ers like to have QB's who can make things happen.
Always have, and hopefully, always will.
Doesn't mean Garcia is advocating a change of offense, doesn't mean Garcia wants to change the playbook, and even if one doesn't believe Garcia even wants these things, which he doesn't, it also follows that the coaching staff and ownership don't want these things to.
The 49'er offense isn't going to change.
It's lack of effectiveness these season in several crucial games can be blamed on a huge assortment of reasons.
But the offense itself is not going anywhere. Remember in 1999 when the 49'er were averaging single digit points from offense in miserable stretches?
It was still the 49'er offense.
It just wasn't executed terribly well.
As for Garcia lobbying for change, he does lobby to open up the playcalling a bit.
But I've never heard Garcia lobby for a change of offensive system.
He just wants 3 WR's on the field more often. And there are 3 WR sets in the 49'er offensive playbook ...
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 