For me, the issue is a pretty different approach. The WCO has always been about ball control through passing as well as running. We are driving defenses nuts with our conversions to move the chains. We take shots downfield, but the focus is on 10-yard passes that keep us on the field. Our approach leads to R Z appearances, which we then have to cash in. We possess the ball a lot doing it. And even our running game is different, much more of a power game.
The GSOT was always looking to hit the big play. Oh, it could drive the ball, too, and we occasionally scored on long drives. But the focus was on chunk plays.
Neither offense was or is weak in the other's area of strength. But the focus and commitment is to different ends of the spectrum.
Deciding which is better? I dunno. I think time will tell us of that. The GSOT had a fairly short shelf life, partly of course because of eroding personnel, but also I think because the league got better and better at defending it.
It just seems to me that this WCO focus might last longer. I mean, SF used it for a decade to drive teams crazy. It is very, very difficult to defend. If--and it is a very big if--McV's offense thrives longer than 3 years, then it might have a claim to at least the superiority of longevity.
