11-15-2010, 12:48 PM
People argue over what a "true" WC offense is, but you can see parts of it in what Stanford does:
--Throws to multiple receivers from multiple formations. check
--Uses the short pass game to move the chains. check
--Throws to the RBs and FB. check
--Uses a TE as an active receiver, not just a blocker who occasionally runs a pattern. check
There can be debate about whether a true WC offense always favors passing over running, but the HOW we pass when we do is definitely WC. Â Think of the frustrating ASU game without Owusu to go vertical. Â And yet, our drives were built on short passes that weren\'t just outlet throws by Luck under pressure. Â Intention and execution of a pass game based on completions where they ain\'t. Â When you see Marecic, think Tom Rathman. When you see our TE corps, think Brent Jones. When you see Luck, Â think Montana with a better arm. We can debate whether Harbaugh\'s love of the run disqualifies us from the WCO domain, but I bet somewhere up there Bill Walsh is smiling.
--Throws to multiple receivers from multiple formations. check
--Uses the short pass game to move the chains. check
--Throws to the RBs and FB. check
--Uses a TE as an active receiver, not just a blocker who occasionally runs a pattern. check
There can be debate about whether a true WC offense always favors passing over running, but the HOW we pass when we do is definitely WC. Â Think of the frustrating ASU game without Owusu to go vertical. Â And yet, our drives were built on short passes that weren\'t just outlet throws by Luck under pressure. Â Intention and execution of a pass game based on completions where they ain\'t. Â When you see Marecic, think Tom Rathman. When you see our TE corps, think Brent Jones. When you see Luck, Â think Montana with a better arm. We can debate whether Harbaugh\'s love of the run disqualifies us from the WCO domain, but I bet somewhere up there Bill Walsh is smiling.