There are 120 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

West Coast Offense for Hill.....

Originally posted by Memphis9er:
Originally posted by sacniner:
I hope no one has given up on Hill. He isn't a pro bowler, but he is serviceable. I like your idea of the WCO. I think he would fit well in that offense. Garcia has a different game, although, he couldn't throw deep either. The WCO offense helped hide some of his flaws, and maybe the same will be done with Hill. Of course this will never happen though.

Garcia could throw a spiral, did a much better job moving around in the pocket, had better presence in the pocket, was more accurate, and most importantly, he threw the ball to the receivers. Hill < Garcia.

How could anyone compare Shaun Hill to Jeff Garcia? They are worlds apart as far as QBs go!
Originally posted by dirtysouthniner:
Originally posted by Memphis9er:
Originally posted by dirtysouthniner:
Originally posted by jones49:
Originally posted by ZRF80:
Originally posted by Memphis9er:
Just what kind of strengths does Hill possess? Gamer doesn't get it done, you have to actually have some physical abilities to work with. Pocket presence and accuracy were supposedly his strengths heading into this year, but so far he has lacked in both. He has the freedom to audible from run/pass or from pass.run, but I have yet to see him actually use this freedom to help move the chains. Teams have figured out that they can run blitz and make us a one dimensional team and put the pressure on Hill, and the Falcons made it work. I am by no means going to blame last week on Hill, I think the offensive line was the biggest culprit, but Hill was as bad as last year against the Rams, who exposed Hill's weaknesses.

He's an accurate passer in his comfort zone. He's not going to complete the 30 yard bomb on a deep post, but he'll squeeze in a good throw on a quick slant. Prime example: when we were down 14-10 this past week, driving inside the Falcons 40. 2nd and 5.....Hill squeezed a pretty good ball to Bruce on a quick slant. Bruce dropped it...Hill gets sacked next play......Niners punt.......results in 90 yard TD by White.

Hill has strengths..we just need to call more plays for him, instead of putting him in position to make a play he cannot make........

Your not wrong. He is accurate, is tough, a good leader and pretty consistant (consistanty ok), but hes wat too limited to to run an entire offense based on is srengths. Its not like hes the future, hes just in there temporarily.

It's amazing how people can just believe this team wins by accident with Hill as the starter. Two years ago we were having a terrible season but Hill comes in and wins us two games. Last year we are again having a terrible season and Hill comes in and wins. Hill starts out this season and wins. Yet some how the winning is coincidence. I don't know if everyone understands how hard it is to win in the NFL but I know it doesn't happen by accident.

He wasn't winning by accident, the team was playing harder and there were changes made along the line. After Nolan was canned the defense went from 26th to 13th, we won more games because of the defense mainly. Last year Hill has 16 turnovers (8 fumbles 8 picks) and 13 td's, his completion % has steadily declined in each of the three seasons he has played in. This team wins because of defense, the defense plays good and we win, it sucks and we lose. The best thing about Hill this year is he has kept his turnovers down. Other than that, he has been pretty unimpressive.

If you're saying that Hill isn't the future than I am with you. But he is the best we got. Garcia was run out of town because he didn't look good winning either.

Please... Garcia wasn't resigned due to salary cap issues. The 9ers were screwed cap-wise and Garcia wanted (and got) BIG $$$$$$$. Which he received from Cleavland.
  • ZRF80
  • Member
  • Posts: 13,551
Originally posted by Gavintech:
Originally posted by ZRF80:
He's an accurate passer in his comfort zone. He's not going to complete the 30 yard bomb on a deep post, but he'll squeeze in a good throw on a quick slant.

Not often enough. Not nearly as often as he did last year. Which is the problem. Last year he could do exactly what you are talking about with some consistency. This year he hasn't been able to.

I dont think the Bill Walsh Offense (I'm assuming that is what you're talking about, not the WCO, the Don Coryell system that Raye is already running) would make much of a difference for Hill IF he keeps playing like he has this season.

Which tells you that the flaw lies in the system, not the player. A player succeeds for 2 straight years, and now all of a sudden loses consistency. It's the system....
Originally posted by ZRF80:
Originally posted by Gavintech:
Originally posted by ZRF80:
He's an accurate passer in his comfort zone. He's not going to complete the 30 yard bomb on a deep post, but he'll squeeze in a good throw on a quick slant.

Not often enough. Not nearly as often as he did last year. Which is the problem. Last year he could do exactly what you are talking about with some consistency. This year he hasn't been able to.

I dont think the Bill Walsh Offense (I'm assuming that is what you're talking about, not the WCO, the Don Coryell system that Raye is already running) would make much of a difference for Hill IF he keeps playing like he has this season.

Which tells you that the flaw lies in the system, not the player. A player succeeds for 2 straight years, and now all of a sudden loses consistency. It's the system....

Well if its the system, which isn't going to magically change mid season, and the QB isn't doing well in the system you put someone else in. If this system is similar to the one we ran in 06 then maybe we should bring in that QB to run it.
Originally posted by ZRF80:
Which tells you that the flaw lies in the system, not the player. A player succeeds for 2 straight years, and now all of a sudden loses consistency. It's the system....

It would tell me that if I was not watching it with my own eyes. I'm watching him just miss guys. Even the short throws and screens he is supposed to be good at, pressure or no pressure (pressure is a part of the game BTW). For whatever reason he doesn't have what he had last year.

Also, I wouldn't say he succeed for two straight years. He's barely got a season's worth of starting under his belt. Not enough to say he's a proven success and if there is something wrong this season it's obviously not with him. Prior to this season he's played pretty good in spurts but was not a world-beater by any stretch. This is not a guy you can say "he's been good for two straight years so something else must be wrong, it's obviously not him" about.
  • BobS
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 7,817
You don't have to have a rifle arm to succeed in the WCO, the important thing is to put the ball where the receiver does not even lose any momentum to catch the ball.
Unfortunately the pie thrower cannot even put a screen pass in the right place. There isn't a system fit for someone who throws like a girl. We know what we have in Smith and Hill. Next game out of reach, toss Davis in there to mop up, give the kid some low pressure minutes. If he progresses, great! If not draft a QB in 2010.
Originally posted by bigmike55:
"Give Hill plenty of screens, slants, short out patterns. "

I like this idea. More shorter routes to compliment Hill's passing style and comfort zone. We need better receivers though. Davis has been our only threat.

The plays you mentioned are already there,teams will scheme to take away the short pass like ATL did leaving Shaun the medium/deep outs,curls and posts which he cannot make and when the D falters like it did then the result is predictable.

Nothing wrong with the WR's,they just need a QB who could get them the ball.Sorry Shaun doesn't get a free pass on this.
Originally posted by ZRF80:
Originally posted by Gavintech:
Originally posted by ZRF80:
He's an accurate passer in his comfort zone. He's not going to complete the 30 yard bomb on a deep post, but he'll squeeze in a good throw on a quick slant.

Not often enough. Not nearly as often as he did last year. Which is the problem. Last year he could do exactly what you are talking about with some consistency. This year he hasn't been able to.

I dont think the Bill Walsh Offense (I'm assuming that is what you're talking about, not the WCO, the Don Coryell system that Raye is already running) would make much of a difference for Hill IF he keeps playing like he has this season.

Which tells you that the flaw lies in the system, not the player. A player succeeds for 2 straight years, and now all of a sudden loses consistency. It's the system....

Hillusions.....
  • Blitz
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 7,858
Let's see. Let's totally rework everything and scheme our offense around a QB who is not a franchise QB?

Brilliant!

Originally posted by E-49er:
Thats all nice and dandy and the WCO is probably the best offense to fit hin, problem is we are not installing the WCO mid season. We are going to have to deal with the players we have and hope the play calling improves and the offense starts showing signs of cohesiveness.

Agreed. It's good to dream, but i'm not expecting any major overhauls during the bye week. It's probably bad for the offense to do anything that dramatic as well.

I also think Raye is too stubborn to change his philosophy.

-9fA
  • Blitz
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 7,858
Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
Originally posted by E-49er:
Thats all nice and dandy and the WCO is probably the best offense to fit hin, problem is we are not installing the WCO mid season. We are going to have to deal with the players we have and hope the play calling improves and the offense starts showing signs of cohesiveness.

Agreed. It's good to dream, but i'm not expecting any major overhauls during the bye week. It's probably bad for the offense to do anything that dramatic as well.

I also think Raye is too stubborn to change his philosophy.

-9fA

Stubbornness doesn't have anything to do with it. Using the personnel you have as best you can does. He simply doesn't have many horses to work with. He has a QB that can only do so much (and that's not a lot, it's just enough) and an o-line that is playing like s**t in run and pass. He couldn't do any major philosophy change even if he wanted to.

What's he gonna do under those terms? Have Hill throw more? Run more? Balls to the wall Tazer? 20 receiver sets?

News flash: None if it works without competence in the trench's.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how we could be using our talent better than what we are, aside from some WCO throwback pipe dream.

[ Edited by Blitz on Oct 14, 2009 at 15:59:14 ]
  • ZRF80
  • Member
  • Posts: 13,551
Originally posted by Super5:
Originally posted by bigmike55:
"Give Hill plenty of screens, slants, short out patterns. "

I like this idea. More shorter routes to compliment Hill's passing style and comfort zone. We need better receivers though. Davis has been our only threat.

The plays you mentioned are already there,teams will scheme to take away the short pass like ATL did leaving Shaun the medium/deep outs,curls and posts which he cannot make and when the D falters like it did then the result is predictable.

Nothing wrong with the WR's,they just need a QB who could get them the ball.Sorry Shaun doesn't get a free pass on this.

Teams cant scheme against everything. If they want to use personnel to take away the short pass, then we run it down their throat. If they want to clog the box, then we use the pass to keep them honest. You cant sit there and say that teams are scheming against the RUN and the PASS. It's one way or the other. From what we've seen, teams are focused on stopping the run. When they feel they've accomplished that, they blitz up the middle to give Hill (and the o-line) no time to get his pass off.

Im not finding excuses for Hill. If he slips, he slips. No one's crowned him heir apparent. But it wouldnt hurt to call plays that he could actually complete.
  • ZRF80
  • Member
  • Posts: 13,551
Originally posted by Blitz:
Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
Originally posted by E-49er:
Thats all nice and dandy and the WCO is probably the best offense to fit hin, problem is we are not installing the WCO mid season. We are going to have to deal with the players we have and hope the play calling improves and the offense starts showing signs of cohesiveness.

Agreed. It's good to dream, but i'm not expecting any major overhauls during the bye week. It's probably bad for the offense to do anything that dramatic as well.

I also think Raye is too stubborn to change his philosophy.

-9fA

Stubbornness doesn't have anything to do with it. Using the personnel you have as best you can does. He simply doesn't have many horses to work with. He has a QB that can only do so much (and that's not a lot, it's just enough) and an o-line that is playing like s**t in run and pass. He couldn't do any major philosophy change even if he wanted to.

What's he gonna do under those terms? Have Hill throw more? Run more? Balls to the wall Tazer? 20 receiver sets?

News flash: None if it works without competence in the trench's.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how we could be using our talent better than what we are, aside from some WCO throwback pipe dream.

What do you propose then ? I can only think of a WCO type playbook, where the QB doesnt have to hold the ball too long. Maybe you're mistaking that as me claiming that we should throw away Raye's playbook and dust off Walsh/Montana's skit from the 80s. You dont need to overhaul your offense; all you need is to implement more short passes into your current format. Not tough to do, especially since it seems like our basic offense is tun off of 5 basic schemes.....
  • Blitz
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 7,858
Originally posted by ZRF80:
Originally posted by Blitz:
Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
Originally posted by E-49er:
Thats all nice and dandy and the WCO is probably the best offense to fit hin, problem is we are not installing the WCO mid season. We are going to have to deal with the players we have and hope the play calling improves and the offense starts showing signs of cohesiveness.

Agreed. It's good to dream, but i'm not expecting any major overhauls during the bye week. It's probably bad for the offense to do anything that dramatic as well.

I also think Raye is too stubborn to change his philosophy.

-9fA

Stubbornness doesn't have anything to do with it. Using the personnel you have as best you can does. He simply doesn't have many horses to work with. He has a QB that can only do so much (and that's not a lot, it's just enough) and an o-line that is playing like s**t in run and pass. He couldn't do any major philosophy change even if he wanted to.

What's he gonna do under those terms? Have Hill throw more? Run more? Balls to the wall Tazer? 20 receiver sets?

News flash: None if it works without competence in the trench's.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how we could be using our talent better than what we are, aside from some WCO throwback pipe dream.

What do you propose then ? I can only think of a WCO type playbook, where the QB doesnt have to hold the ball too long. Maybe you're mistaking that as me claiming that we should throw away Raye's playbook and dust off Walsh/Montana's skit from the 80s. You dont need to overhaul your offense; all you need is to implement more short passes into your current format. Not tough to do, especially since it seems like our basic offense is tun off of 5 basic schemes.....

I propose this: Fix the o-line.

Repeat...fix the o-line.

Say again: FIX THE f**kING O-LINE

Just to be clear: Fix the o-line.

Fix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-lineFix the o-line


Then come talk, cause' otherwise, your pissin' in the wind.
Originally posted by ZRF80:
Originally posted by Blitz:
Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
Originally posted by E-49er:
Thats all nice and dandy and the WCO is probably the best offense to fit hin, problem is we are not installing the WCO mid season. We are going to have to deal with the players we have and hope the play calling improves and the offense starts showing signs of cohesiveness.

Agreed. It's good to dream, but i'm not expecting any major overhauls during the bye week. It's probably bad for the offense to do anything that dramatic as well.

I also think Raye is too stubborn to change his philosophy.

-9fA

Stubbornness doesn't have anything to do with it. Using the personnel you have as best you can does. He simply doesn't have many horses to work with. He has a QB that can only do so much (and that's not a lot, it's just enough) and an o-line that is playing like s**t in run and pass. He couldn't do any major philosophy change even if he wanted to.

What's he gonna do under those terms? Have Hill throw more? Run more? Balls to the wall Tazer? 20 receiver sets?

News flash: None if it works without competence in the trench's.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how we could be using our talent better than what we are, aside from some WCO throwback pipe dream.

What do you propose then ? I can only think of a WCO type playbook, where the QB doesnt have to hold the ball too long. Maybe you're mistaking that as me claiming that we should throw away Raye's playbook and dust off Walsh/Montana's skit from the 80s. You dont need to overhaul your offense; all you need is to implement more short passes into your current format. Not tough to do, especially since it seems like our basic offense is tun off of 5 basic schemes.....



I'm sorry but he hasn't HAD to hold the ball that long, half the time guys are open but he's choosing not to throw the ball because of the fact that he's not confident he can get the ball there before the DB recovers. Some of the blame is on the OL and some is on the QB but I don't think changing our plays will help him that much. Even in the WCO you need to keep defenses honest. His arm isn't doing that, they leave guys open down the field and they cover the shorter passes if they have to. He can't squeeze the ball in tight spaces and he can't make all the throws. You can say Young didn't have a good arm, which isn't true, and you can say Garcia didn't, which is true but his was still better than Hill's, and they had success in the WCO, but the difference between them is they played consistently and had success. Shaun isn't doing anything different really, teams are just adjusting to his limitations and it's making it easier for for them to gameplan for our O. Most of Shaun's stats are in the bottom of the league for starting QBs, just above JaMarcus Russel and Anderson and guys like that.