The WCO. No, that doesn't stand for the Wisconsin Chamber Orchestra or the World Customs Organization (both of which, however, show up as possibles if you do a wiki search). We are, of course, talking about the West Coast Offense. The very same offense that Andy Reid was supposedly running during his tenure in Philadelphia. "Supposedly" Aiken? What in the name of Jerry Rice is that supposed to mean?
Well, let me tell ya. You all know that Joe Montana is my hero. Having him play for my Chiefs may just have been the highlight of my fandom to date (this could possibly be eclipsed by the Chiefs winning another Super Bowl but let's not get ahead of ourselves). I mean, I love the fact that 65 Toss Power Trap won us a Super Bowl but I was a bit too young to participate in those festivities at the time, and since then we really haven't had much to compare to that. For me, having a Super Bowl winning QB at the helm of my favorite team was better than not having loved at all (Tennyson forgive me for that reference).
It just so happens that Joe was running Bill Walsh's version of the WCO when he won those Super Bowls for Walsh and Seifert. I thought it was about time for a little discussion on this most wonderous and exciting offense along with a look at how Andy Reid and potentially Alex Smith fit under the same roof. Everyone is so caught up in Alex Smith 'game film' (I mean seriously do fan's actually watch 800 hours of game film to find out that Alex Smith can actually throw a football?--isn't that a QB's job?) that they have given little to no attention to what is really important here--do Reid, Smith and the WCO actually combine to make a Super Bowl winning team a possibility?
Could it be possible that the fact that someone actually felt 800 hours of film study was necessary before giving their approval to our new QB is testament to the fact that statistically he just might not be all that good? I mean, if a statistical analysis leads you down a road you don't like, what are you to do? You can either accept those stats and report on same, or, if you have the power of the bully pulpit you do something that you know others simply won't do and then you throw your hands in the air and start speaking in tongues about how the stats LIE. You see, statistics are merely an attempt to put a players abilities into context so that he can be compared to other players. Stats can definitely be used to mislead, but over time, stats begin to give a relevant view of a players actual accomplishment on the field. If you want to watch the film (particularly of that specific players best games of his career), ignore the stats and conclude that the stats simply don't tell the story, you are more than welcome to do that. The question becomes however, just who are you misleading by doing so? Homers mislead themselves all the time. It's a requirement.
While it is my fervent wish that Alex Smith is the second coming of Joe Montana in Chiefs regalia, the truth is that even if that is the case, Reid's recent display of coaching mediocrity has given us plenty of reason to pause before we begin making Super Bowl banners out of butcher paper for the players to run through when their name is called at the big game.
While it is my fervent wish that Alex Smith is the second coming of Joe Montana in Chiefs regalia, the truth is that even if that is the case, Reid's recent display of coaching mediocrity has given us plenty of reason to pause before we begin making Super Bowl banners out of butcher paper for the players to run through when their name is called at the big game.
