campbell, west coast offense, audibles

[Thinking Skins]

I think there is abit of a myth around what actually an audible is in the modern NFL.

Increasingly passing schemes in many NFL style offenses have no audible as such where the QB changes the play at the line. Instead they have increasingly complex sight adjustments where a receiver may run a completley different route to the one called in the huddle based on if he reads man or zone, if he reads blitz, if he has press or a cushion, if the play side backer is in a hook zone or on a dog etc etc etc. As such audibles in the passing game are almost obsolete.

So what is normally meant now by an audible in the ability to change a running play if the defense is sacked against what was called or to switch from run to pass or visa versa.

As such what happened under Al Saunders will not be much if any different than what happens under Jim Zorn IMO.

I don't know about that cause I've heard stories about how QBs would see weaknesses in defenses and tell the flanker to do a go route instead of going across the middle.

But from what I was reading last year, I think I've seen more of audibles being about a connection between the QB and WR. Like, in the huddle they'll go through a set of scenarios "if #55 is blitzing then go on a slant. if not, then go on a 15 yard curl". i've read about those in some post-game comments. But I've also heard about stuff where a QB is given a few plays and just has to choose between them to decide which one is best for the defense he's going up against. Then there's the whole no-huddle offense which relies on making calls at the line and is all about being able to audible.

[Thinking Skins]

I know people were talking about JC and his ability in the no huddle offense. But last year, when he was at his best (when the Redskins finally started letting him throw the ball more), he was in the no huddle offense. In these things, he was calling the plays What that means exactly I don't know, but here's what Jason had to say about it after the Eagles game.

http://www.redskins.com/news/newsDetail.jsp?id=31258

On using the no-huddle offense:

"Coach gave me the opportunity to call plays by using the no huddle. Whatever you see, you need to make the call and make the play. You need to make sure everybody gets lined up right. I thought the guys in the huddle did an outstanding job of being on point and being in the area they needed to be in. We moved the ball very well."

[RocketCitySkins]

Eventually one day I will be wrong. Today is not that day:

"Gibbs allowed quarterback Jason Campbell to decide at the line whether to run the draw or pass"

Link

It was in his presser after the game that Gibbs said he told JC to make the call based on the defense. I'll try to find a link.

[Morneblade]

Eventually one day I will be wrong. Today is not that day:

"Gibbs allowed quarterback Jason Campbell to decide at the line whether to run the draw or pass"

Link

Wrong twice in one day. That has to suck.

[icbmayday]

Redskins were the only team in the league who couldn't call an audible we would always just burn time outs I hope that changes under zorn.

[GreenRiggins]

He'll probably have a longer leash than he did under Gibbs.

I hope not ..........

At least not until he truly understands this offense inside and out.

[corrupt3d]

I hope not ..........

At least not until he truly understands this offense inside and out.

I personally think he understood it more than Gibbs and Saunders were letting on, but look at their histories...neither have been particularly trusting of QB's under the age of 30 (slight exageration, but you see what I'm getting at)

[elkabong82]

That old article on the WCO actually brought up an interesting idea. They mentioned how every WCO uses the pass to set-up the run, save for Denver who uses the run to set-up the pass.

Now, Zorn and Buges have said the run game won't change. But how can you do that if you are installing a WCO system that is pass-firts? IMO, you do it by mimicking Denver's WCO. This means our WCO will emphasize run first, and then leave the WRs open on passing. This would make the Davis pick make a lot more sense. Imagine running a 2-TE set, with CP in the backfield. If the D pulls people in, we've got mismatches with our TEs, if they keep people out, it leaves room underneath for CP to run, or catch an out or screen. This is just one of the many applications a 2-TE set will have with an O like ours.

Note: This is just specualtion and thought, I don't know if this is exactly what Zorn will be trying to do. We'll have to wait until training camp and preseason before we find that out. Just some thoughts to entertain.

[Thinking Skins]

That old article on the WCO actually brought up an interesting idea. They mentioned how every WCO uses the pass to set-up the run, save for Denver who uses the run to set-up the pass.

Now, Zorn and Buges have said the run game won't change. But how can you do that if you are installing a WCO system that is pass-firts? IMO, you do it by mimicking Denver's WCO. This means our WCO will emphasize run first, and then leave the WRs open on passing. This would make the Davis pick make a lot more sense. Imagine running a 2-TE set, with CP in the backfield. If the D pulls people in, we've got mismatches with our TEs, if they keep people out, it leaves room underneath for CP to run, or catch an out or screen. This is just one of the many applications a 2-TE set will have with an O like ours.

Note: This is just specualtion and thought, I don't know if this is exactly what Zorn will be trying to do. We'll have to wait until training camp and preseason before we find that out. Just some thoughts to entertain.

This was an immediate thought of mine when we drafted Davis. That two TE set with Portis in the backfield can be deadly. If Davis can pick up the offense quickly, then I see him being a big part from the get-go. We may open up in a single-back 2TE set, with Cooley as the primary option and Davis as the check-down.

[GSF]

Whoah...GURU sighting. Theismann called some great audibles, but I think I remember audibles being a source of friction between Theismann and Gibbs at times?

[elkabong82]

This was an immediate thought of mine when we drafted Davis. That two TE set with Portis in the backfield can be deadly. If Davis can pick up the offense quickly, then I see him being a big part from the get-go. We may open up in a single-back 2TE set, with Cooley as the primary option and Davis as the check-down.

See, the first thing I thought of when we drafted Davis was ... huh? But then when I thought about it more, I simply connected the 2 TE set to a redzone package to help bolster the weakest part of our game from last season. Davis was a redzone threat in college. However, when I read that article about the way Denver uses their WCO, it seemed to make even more sense why we drafted Davis. The way you describe it, and the possible coach mentality that returing CP to his Denver WCO will equal a return to his production in that system. If that happens, it will certainly make JC's life a lot easier. 4 WR and 2 TE sets I think are going to be our bread and butter this year.

[Morneblade]

That old article on the WCO actually brought up an interesting idea. They mentioned how every WCO uses the pass to set-up the run, save for Denver who uses the run to set-up the pass.

Now, Zorn and Buges have said the run game won't change. But how can you do that if you are installing a WCO system that is pass-firts? IMO, you do it by mimicking Denver's WCO. This means our WCO will emphasize run first, and then leave the WRs open on passing. This would make the Davis pick make a lot more sense. Imagine running a 2-TE set, with CP in the backfield. If the D pulls people in, we've got mismatches with our TEs, if they keep people out, it leaves room underneath for CP to run, or catch an out or screen. This is just one of the many applications a 2-TE set will have with an O like ours.

Note: This is just specualtion and thought, I don't know if this is exactly what Zorn will be trying to do. We'll have to wait until training camp and preseason before we find that out. Just some thoughts to entertain.

They didnt change the terminology for the running game, I think that is what they were getting at. As to how they will approch playcalling it remains to be seen. However, I dont really see Davis and Cooley on the field all that much. Niether one are good blockers and with both in the game, it will be pretty obvious that it's going to be a passing play. I still dont like the move.

[GURU]

They didnt change the terminology for the running game, I think that is what they were getting at. As to how they will approich playcalling it remains to be seen. However, I dont really see Davis and Cooley on the field all that much. Niether one are good blockers and with both in the game, it will be pretty obvious that it's going to be a passing play. I still dont like the move.

I'm not so sure it's that simple. And I think the sweeping statements that Cooley and Davis aren't "good" blockers might be off mark. I think you have to put things in perspective.

When you say these TEs aren't good blockers, I think you have to be more specific. Do they block like third tackles like, say, Kyle Brady? No. We've seen Cooley struggle at times pass blocking defensive ends in max protection. But the question should be: "Are Cooley and Davis going to be better at blocking linebackers and DBs on sweeps and off tackle plays than Santana Moss and Antwan Randle-El?" I think you gotta say yes. So I'm not so sure that having both those TEs in the game automatically tips off the defense.

2-tight end packages can be effective if used judiciously -- even on "pass happy" teams. Take the Patriots. Even last season, when they spread the field so often, the 2-tight end packages were used more than people realize. The combo of Ben Watson and Kyle Brady combined for 45 receptions and 8 TDs. In '06, the combo of Watson and Daniel Graham combined for 70 catches and 5 TDs. In '05, the pair combined for 45 catches and 7 TDs.

Going back to when the Pats won back-to-back Super Bowls, the combo of Graham and Chrisian Fauria combined for 46 receptions and 9 TDs in '04, and 66 catches and 6 TDs in '03.

The Colts once used both Ken Dilger and and Marcus Pollard together at times, and they combined for over 70 catches three straight seasons and scored 9 TDs in '01.

So don't assume there won't be much of a use for 2-TE formation in Zorn's offense. It all comes down to situational matchups. Some games, you might hardly see any plays with two TEs. But other games, say, against a Cover-2 defense, the 2-TE lineup could be very effective in both the run and pass games because those types of defenses often feature smaller players in the front seven and TEs are often very effective against zone coverages.

I wasn't in favor of drafting Davis, but he's here, so Zorn might as well figure out how to utilize him.

[SoCalSkins]

Wrong twice in one day. That has to suck.

Only for you. I proved you were wrong and I was right. That is how it usually works with me.

[Morneblade]

I'm not so sure it's that simple. And I think the sweeping statements that Cooley and Davis aren't "good" blockers might be off mark. I think you have to put things in perspective.

When you say these TEs aren't good blockers, I think you have to be more specific. Do they block like third tackles like, say, Kyle Brady? No. We've seen Cooley struggle at times pass blocking defensive ends in max protection. But the question should be: "Are Cooley and Davis going to be better at blocking linebackers and DBs on sweeps and off tackle plays than Santana Moss and Antwan Randle-El?" I think you gotta say yes. So I'm not so sure that having both those TEs in the game automatically tips off the defense.

It does, if your going to have both guys in, your going ot have to take someone else out. Sellers? You do that, you just downgraded your blocking....alot. The fact that he is a threat out of the backfield means you just got more pradicable. A WR? Well, then you're down to 1 WR, and it probalby isnt a pass play. Now, if you yank Sellars and slpit Davis out that's one thing, but it's still probably going to be a pass play. Once again, you are cutting down what you can do with you playcalling.

2-tight end packages can be effective if used judiciously -- even on "pass happy" teams. Take the Patriots. Even last season, when they spread the field so often, the 2-tight end packages were used more than people realize. The combo of Ben Watson and Kyle Brady combined for 45 receptions and 8 TDs. In '06, the combo of Watson and Daniel Graham combined for 70 catches and 5 TDs. In '05, the pair combined for 45 catches and 7 TDs.

In 2006 the Pats pass the ball 27 more times than they ran it. That's pretty balanced. And the stats you show are not even up to what Cooley has been doing by himself. You wanna take balls away from our probowler?

Going back to when the Pats won back-to-back Super Bowls, the combo of Graham and Chrisian Fauria combined for 46 receptions and 9 TDs in '04, and 66 catches and 6 TDs in '03.

The Colts once used both Ken Dilger and and Marcus Pollard together at times, and they combined for over 70 catches three straight seasons and scored 9 TDs in '01.

So don't assume there won't be much of a use for 2-TE formation in Zorn's offense. It all comes down to situational matchups. Some games, you might hardly see any plays with two TEs. But other games, say, against a Cover-2 defense, the 2-TE lineup could be very effective in both the run and pass games because those types of defenses often feature smaller players in the front seven and TEs are often very effective against zone coverages.

It helps if you have a TE that excells at run blocking. Neither Cooley or Davis do that.

I wasn't in favor of drafting Davis, but he's here, so Zorn might as well figure out how to utilize him.

I suppose. But it's still a bad move for a 2nd round pick when we had much more serious issues elsewhere.

[Morneblade]

Only for you. I proved you were wrong and I was right. That is how it usually works with me.

LOL, your as demented as OF. You were wrong about the audibles, and wrong about being wrong. Too funny.

[Morneblade]

Only for you. I proved you were wrong and I was right. That is how it usually works with me.

I'd just like to point out, the play you pointed out wasnt an audible. That was a run pass option, given to Campbell by Gibbs. Basically, he got 2 plays and got to pick one debending on the defense. An audible is being given a single play, then checking out of it to something different that is not given to the QB by the coach, but rather the QB makes the call on his own to what the play will be.

So it wasnt an audble.

[Thinking Skins]

I'm not so sure it's that simple. And I think the sweeping statements that Cooley and Davis aren't "good" blockers might be off mark. I think you have to put things in perspective.

When you say these TEs aren't good blockers, I think you have to be more specific. Do they block like third tackles like, say, Kyle Brady? No. We've seen Cooley struggle at times pass blocking defensive ends in max protection. But the question should be: "Are Cooley and Davis going to be better at blocking linebackers and DBs on sweeps and off tackle plays than Santana Moss and Antwan Randle-El?" I think you gotta say yes. So I'm not so sure that having both those TEs in the game automatically tips off the defense.

I think its a little bit different than that. We know that Moss, El, Cooley and Portis ar pretty much set in our basic lineup. So the question is really about that 5th spot. So the question becomes "Does Davis provide our offense with more firepower than does Sellars?" I'm not going to try to make the ludacris argument that Davis is a better run blocker than Sellars cause thats just crazy. But the thing is that TEs are generally good run blockers as they're able to handle the bigger linebackers and just demolish the smaller DBs.

I remember when Cooley first came into the league, he wrote in his training camp diary about how he needed to improve his run blocking, and he was saying that he's gotten a lot better. If Davis can come in and put the same type of effort towards improving his run blocking, then the two tight end package can easily become a more dangerous package than the two back setting because it gives us the option to run Portis left or right or a pass to the TEs or a quick pass to the WRs, with the TEs as checkdown options.

Blade, you've got to admit that while Sellars is a better run blocker than Davis, we expect Davis to be a better pass catcher than Sellars. So the question really becomes can Sellars improve his pass catching abilities more than Davis can improve his run blocking abilities? I'd be willing to hedge my bets on Davis becoming a decent run blocker, hence making our two TE set a dangerous weapon.

[Morneblade]

Blade, you've got to admit that while Sellars is a better run blocker than Davis, we expect Davis to be a better pass catcher than Sellars. So the question really becomes can Sellars improve his pass catching abilities more than Davis can improve his run blocking abilities? I'd be willing to hedge my bets on Davis becoming a decent run blocker, hence making our two TE set a dangerous weapon.

The real question is Davis a better blocker than Sellers a receiver? Right now I go Sellers. He kills people, is a weapon in the Red Zone, and has shown he can get deep down the middle from both the FB and TE spots. Not only is Sellers better he's much more versital. When Davis can play FB is about the only time we really should be having talking about Sellers and Davis in the same sentence. We know Sellers can play the position, play it well and does things that compliment Cooley.

[Aston]

Last year i complained a ton about the fact that campbell never called audibles. i was told it was because of the way saunders/gibbs offense was run and that audibles just werent part of the scheme (which i find ridiculous considering how helpful they can be if a D reads your formation to a T). my question is do you guys think campbell will be given more free reign regarding audibles this year? i think theyre a very important part of an offense and last year without them was just another piece holding us back.

so in short, will campbell be able to call audibles in this west coast offense?

If you really want to know, I'd post this same question over in the Seahawks forum. I'd think the truth would likely be closer what Seattle's offense actually did as opposed to what we all speculate the offense will do.

[Thinking Skins]

The real question is Davis a better blocker than Sellers a receiver? Right now I go Sellers. He kills people, is a weapon in the Red Zone, and has shown he can get deep down the middle from both the FB and TE spots. Not only is Sellers better he's much more versital. When Davis can play FB is about the only time we really should be having talking about Sellers and Davis in the same sentence. We know Sellers can play the position, play it well and does things that compliment Cooley.

Lets calm down the prasies on this guy Sellers. He's a great blocker, but his recieving skills aren't the best. He's been begging for more receptions, but he's not the type of guy who can get yards after catch like Davis can. So if Davis can learn to run block, which Cooley was able to learn and improve on in his first training camp, the guy can become much more of a threat than Sellers is right now.

[Morneblade]

Lets calm down the prasies on this guy Sellers. He's a great blocker, but his recieving skills aren't the best. He's been begging for more receptions, but he's not the type of guy who can get yards after catch like Davis can. So if Davis can learn to run block, which Cooley was able to learn and improve on in his first training camp, the guy can become much more of a threat than Sellers is right now.

Sellers has very good hands. Now, he might not be the fastest guy at TE, but he can catch the ball well. And the fact is that he's a much better blocker than Davis will ever be. Here is the thing about blocking, you have to have additude to be really good. The knock on Davis is that he's kinda lazy, and you have to want to be a good blocker to be one. I dont see Davis wanting to block, so I dont think he'll be very good at it.

So lets calm down the praises on this guys Davis.

[SoCalSkins]

I'd just like to point out, the play you pointed out wasnt an audible. That was a run pass option, given to Campbell by Gibbs. Basically, he got 2 plays and got to pick one debending on the defense. An audible is being given a single play, then checking out of it to something different that is not given to the QB by the coach, but rather the QB makes the call on his own to what the play will be.

So it wasnt an audble.

An audible is changing a play based on how the defense lines up. The fact that the play was dictated by the defense and that JC had to make the decision, makes it the same thing. You essentially responded that under Saunders, JC never had to make those decisions. I provided a link that proved you were wrong.

[Morneblade]

An audible is changing a play based on how the defense lines up. The fact that the play was dictated by the defense and that JC had to make the decision, makes it the same thing. You essentially responded that under Saunders, JC never had to make those decisions. I provided a link that proved you were wrong.

No, it's not. If JC was calling a audible why was Gibbs having to defend his (Gibbs') call? Which is what the article was about. Gibbs gave Jason 2 plays, Jason gets to pick 1. It's called (usually) a run/pass option, but the plays are completely dictated by the coach, which is why Gibbs was defending his OWN playcall. NOT Campbells.

An audible works like this.

Jason is given 1 (one) play from the sideline. He goes up and see something he can exploit or see that the defense has the play they have called covered. He then picks a play out ON HIS OWN, (not one of 2 plays given to him from the sideline) from the entire playbook, and then changes the play at the line, with no invovlment from the coach.

So, you're wrong 3 times. That Saunders system had audibles, that I was wrong and on the definition of an audible.

The closest JC ever came to that was against the Panthers when his headset went down in the middle of the play call, and he had to call one himself. Went for a TD. But that was due to a failure in the communication system, so it really doesnt count either.

By definition: Also called automatic, checkoff. Football. a play called at the line of scrimmage to supersede the play originally agreed upon as the result of a change in strategy.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Audible

Since the play JC ran was originally was agreed to by the coach (since he was the one that ****ing called it), it wasnt an audible.

You're wrong, just man up to it.

[skinpride1]

I just got done watching some games I recorded in 06 and 07. The one thing that hit me first when I started watching them was the play calling. The play calling was horrendously bad!!!!

The three and outs were horrible!! We lacked any real fire power down field and we could not fool anyone with the dinks and dunks and reverses.

I hope Zorn can make our offense click!!!!