This is something that has cropped up many times in the past, and frankly, I just don't quite see the relationship between the two. Yes, they both have red and white in them; yes, they both have stars. But two red stripes on a white field is not 13 red and white stripes, and three red stars is not 13 white stars; and where did the blue of the flag come from? Certainly not Washington's arms, which have no blue in them.
Anyway, I wrote the following comment on the article, which you may read (along with the entirety of Mr. Marlin's column) at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-tepper-marlin/washington-coat-of-arms_b_1906733.html
If you don't choose to read the entire thing, here's what I said:
To simply accept that the flag of the United States was somehow an homage to George Washington and his personal arms is to ignore the earlier striped flags used by American forces. The first Navy jack (1775) consisted of 13 red and white horizontal stripes. Some of these jacks may have had an uncoiled rattlesnake and the legend "Don't tread on me" on them. Later (1775-1776), the Grand Union flag consisted of 13 red and white stripes with a canton of the union flag of Great Britain was used by American forces. It was not until the Flag Act of 1777 that the crosses of St. George and St. Andrew on the Grand Union flag were replaced in the canton by 13 white stars on the blue canton. Given the use of these earlier flags, I really don't see a strong connection with the coat of arms of George Washington at all. Indeed, the flag seems to me to be a logical evolution from the even earlier Red Ensign and White Ensign used by the British fleets to the flag of the new nation, without requiring a vague resemblance between a white ground with two red horizontal stripes and three red stars to explain its origins. Further, if it was to be an homage to Washington, why use blue at all, or change the color of the stars from red to white?