Is the WCO still significant?

[The Full Monty]

Oldfan,

Could you clarify on your post in the context of Holmgren and um, his tenure with Brett Favre? That guy was Mr. Big Play in his time with Holmgren.

I don't see how you can say that Shanahan and Reid aren't WCOs. They modified and changed it as they adapted and evolved it. Just because it's not a carbon copy of Walsh doesn't make it a new monster.

Just like Norv Turner and Mike Martz and Cam Cameron, they run an updated modified version of the Coryell offense.

[Larry Brown #43]

The wco really needs a QB that can drop quickly and get the ball out of there hands faster. I don't understand the philosopy behind vinny trying to fit square pegs into round holes

True. In retrospect, it's pretty easy to see why things aren't working. Look at Matt Hasselbeck--it took him three years in Green Bay (one on the practice squad and two as a backup), plus two full seasons as a starter in Seattle, before he even knew what he was doing in the WCO. Then his career took flight.

Taking our team, with its aged roster and limited window for success, and implementing a completely foreign system with a QB who's a lousy fit for the system--was nuts. Particularly if they were expecting immediate results, which they were. The message from the organization when Gibbs left was "this team is ready to win now."

Most of our current offensive players are a poor fit for the offense, old, or just not very good--or a combination of the three. This was a recipe for a trainwreck.

[Oldfan]

Oldfan, Could you clarify on your post in the context of Holmgren and um, his tenure with Brett Favre? That guy was Mr. Big Play in his time with Holmgren.

Holmgren did adapt to Favre in Green Bay. His Seattle teams were conventional Walsh.

I don't see how you can say that Shanahan and Reid aren't WCOs. They modified and changed it as they adapted and evolved it. Just because it's not a carbon copy of Walsh doesn't make it a new monster.

Their offenses are different fundamentally. The Walsh WCO is intended for ball control. Shanahan and Reid built big play offenses around their QBs -- Walsh's WRs weren't fast little runts.

[Oldfan]

Taking our team, with its aged roster and limited window for success, and implementing a completely foreign system with a QB who's a lousy fit for the system--was nuts. Particularly if they were expecting immediate results, which they were. The message from the organization when Gibbs left was "this team is ready to win now."

Thanks largely to his policy of trading away draft picks, Gibbs left us an O-line that was old and degrading fast. The Coryell offense, with lots of seven-step drops, and play action gained by establishing the run, requires a top notch O-line to operate efficiently.

[Wyvern]

I think the FO had this idea that Campbell could become the marquee QB for this WCO -- and he'd have the short passing game plus his powerful long passing game. In which case you'd have a potent offense, great numbers for the QB, and a lot of people wearing #17 jerseys.

And consider how at the time, Samuels, Dockery, Rabach, Thomas and Jansen -- were essentially healthy and had represented a decent NFL O-line. Cooley was getting great great YAC, ARE was supposed to be the 'elusive' guy, and Moss was a talent in any system. And the Skins had two good pass receiving RBs as well. (And the Skins planed to draft a few 'tree-type' WRs to work into the mix.)

But it was surprising how quickly the offensive line got old and injury prone. Dockery signing with Buffalo must have come as a surprise. The bigger surprise was the decline of Jansen. Then came Thomas' injuries. Suddenly, this wasn't as good of a line, in spite of Bugel's promises.

Most importantly -- Campbell simply didn't adapt well to the requirements of new system -- even with one of the more highly regarded QB-coaches giving him hands-on instruction. And Portis, the main RB threat was showing wear and tear but was still entitled to a big share of the plays.

This team got old quickly, and the coaches weren't able to coach up anyone to replace those who didn't fit the system. I'd note that with the exception of Cooley our receivers going over the middle do not get much YAC, something the WCO hopes for. Some on the receiver, but also some on the QB for not being able to hit them in stride.

This was supposed to be a transition led by the development/blossoming of Campbell, Cooley, and the new WRs into this new system. Bugel would be infusing new talent on the O-line as the final touch. We were considered deep at RB.

Instead the key lynchpin of the WCO, Campbell, plateaued and the passing game was unreliable. And the offensive line and the running game started to deteriorate. And all the rookie talent being developed was not yet able to step up.

Had Campbell developed in the WCO -- he might have been able to make the offense look a lot better. However, his supporting cast has begun to falter, and so there's no one really able to step up reliably. And he hasn't been able to overcome that that.

[Skin'Em84]

I think the scheme is a lot less important than team chemistry. Belichick, Gibbs, Lombardi, Allen, Landry, and many others prove that.

Best line of the week.

[Oldfan]

I think the scheme is a lot less important than team chemistry. Belichick, Gibbs, Lombardi, Allen, Landry, and many others prove that.

Can you define "team chemistry" for us? If it isn't performance by players coordinated to fit a scheme, what the hell is it?

Those coaches you listed are all connected to schemes that were innovative at the time.

[budski]

WCO? more like the WCSO, We Can't Score Offense.

[Warpath11]

I think you need to collect far too much talent at the skill spots to make the WCO work

I actually disagree the original intent of the WCO was to make something out of a lack of talent paticularly at the QB position. The Croyell/Gibbs/Saunders offenses take far more talent (especially on the o-line) to be run successfully.

[Warpath11]

Holmgren did adapt to Favre in Green Bay. His Seattle teams were conventional Walsh.

In your opinion, Oldfan, dont you think the Skins should taylor their offense to the strength of Campbell? A lot of intermediate routes with the occasional deep ball complementing his arm strenght and simpifying the reads necessary.

I think he would have more success in the Reid "WCO" than the Walsh. Having said that it is probably hard to do that without a decent o-line as the downfield WCO requires more time for the longer routes to develop.

Hypothetically speaking if we had the o-line to do it do you think Campbell would have more success in the Reid type WCO?

[SkinsFTW]

Can you define "team chemistry" for us? If it isn't performance by players coordinated to fit a scheme, what the hell is it?

Those coaches you listed are all connected to schemes that were innovative at the time.

It's basically what Zorn and the players have been saying since last year (Except team chemistry precedes Execution) but with a not very respected coach because he's a yesman and undermined by the FO circus they will never have great team chemistry. Meanwhile Zorn's redzone playcalling undermines the team chemistry that got them there, and the players execution at other times undermines Zorn as the Head Coach and playcaller and brings on the 2 headed FO monster that already undermined Zorn by not acquiring the OL depth so that he could pull Heyer when he gets blown up repeatedly. All this on top of hiring for HC a guy who had never even proven to be able to call plays or had an offense or the ability to make one, gameplan, lead a team, etc. Just Blind, we believe.

The Redskins are a fantasy football team built the same way many of us at ES would build our Madden team on the xbox 360. They aren't an elite team focused on a common team goal. When Moss 1/2 asses it he still starts due to the alternative, when Heyer gets blown up because he lets every defender in the league get under his pads he still stays in the game, etc. Starting a QB that doesn't keep his receivers in the game also might be a part of the team chemistry thing we saw when Collins replaced him in 07 as well.

This team isn't like what Gibbs was doing either, he got rid of problems like Coles, Arrington, Mc Cants when he could. Gibbs in 2005 had built team chemistry in what everybody claimed was an out dated offense that could not win. Still we entered the playoffs as the most feared team according to some. The only negative was Brunell being injured and was never replaced by Ramsey, IMO. With a great defense that had averaged 3-4 sacks and 3-4 turnovers over the previous 5 games while not giving up many points Ramsey could have ran the score up on teams but instead Brunell set a record for playoff futility and then a tired team lost to Seattle.

Then they blew up the offense and what happened to the team chemistry? We went 5-11 with what looked like a totally different team with no chemistry.

This is all why I'm starting to go back to believing that with this Front Office setup nothing else really matters. They set the whole thing up to fail and then need an extra set of eyes to examine the predictable results.

[Oldfan]

In your opinion, Oldfan, dont you think the Skins should taylor their offense to the strength of Campbell? A lot of intermediate routes with the occasional deep ball complementing his arm strenght and simpifying the reads necessary.

Zorn was trying to do that this season, but the O-line injuries to Thomas and Samuels puts a damper on long-developing plays.

I think he would have more success in the Reid "WCO" than the Walsh. Having said that it is probably hard to do that without a decent o-line as the downfield WCO requires more time for the longer routes to develop.

Holmgren advised Zorn to stick with the WCO principles. That was probably bad advice. You can't run the conventional WCO from the shotgun, but that is the best solution right now for Jason and the passing game.

Hypothetically speaking if we had the o-line to do it do you think Campbell would have more success in the Reid type WCO?

No, I don't like Reid's scheme. It's an inconsistent offense even with McNabb running it -- and McNabb is better at extending plays and throwing deep than Jason.

[TimmySmith]

I actually disagree the original intent of the WCO was to make something out of a lack of talent paticularly at the QB position.

I would say particularly at the line position. Regardless of original intent, the only teams to have prolonged success in the WCO have had incredible QBs, Montana, Young, Farve, Elway. Gannon, Hasselbeck, McNabb are examples of guys who immediately took to the offense and excelled. Even then, you look at some of the RB numbers which are amazing, Roger Craig, Terrell Davis, Ahman Green, Sean Alexander put up huge numbers, then look what happened when those guys broke down, the run ended. My point is, the WCO needs elite players more than other offenses.

[Warpath11]

No, I don't like Reid's scheme. It's an inconsistent offense even with McNabb running it -- and McNabb is better at extending plays and throwing deep than Jason.

I hear ya, but I would argue that Jason is better at extending plays and throwing deep than taking a quick 3 to 5 step drop and delivering the football at the top of the drop (with fast football processing). His downfield accuracy leaves a lot to be desired so I dont know exactly what would best suit his strengths (whatever they maybe).

Come to think of it I have a feeling Jason would do well in the Childress/Minnesota run first WCO (again if we had a luxury of that great o-line and AP).

[SkinsFTW]

I would say particularly at the line position. Regardless of original intent, the only teams to have prolonged success in the WCO have had incredible QBs, Montana, Young, Farve, Elway. Gannon, Hasselbeck, McNabb are examples of guys who immediately took to the offense and excelled. Even then, you look at some of the RB numbers which are amazing, Roger Craig, Terrell Davis, Ahman Green, Sean Alexander put up huge numbers, then look what happened when those guys broke down, the run ended. My point is, the WCO needs elite players more than other offenses.

I know, and it's not like some of those teams didn't have great OL's and WR's either. I'd say that Mc Nabb has probably done the most with the least, same with Favre and look at how many times those guys got kicked from the playoffs. So do you need Rice, Taylor, Craig, nice OL, nice Def and elite QB? What's less here? 49ers with Young/Rice/Watters had to sign up a ton of FA's and Deion Sanders to win 1.

[Warpath11]

Zorn was trying to do that this season, but the O-line injuries to Thomas and Samuels puts a damper on long-developing plays.

I think you maybe onto something, though the only evidence I have seen of this was against NE in the pre-season (we took a bunch of shots down-the-field). In the regular season we never got Jason in a rhythm to get to those longer plays in the game plan.

[Oldfan]

It's basically what Zorn and the players have been saying since last year (Except team chemistry precedes Execution) but with a not very respected coach because he's a yesman and undermined by the FO circus they will never have great team chemistry. Meanwhile Zorn's redzone playcalling undermines the team chemistry that got them there, and the players execution at other times undermines Zorn as the Head Coach and playcaller and brings on the 2 headed FO monster that already undermined Zorn by not acquiring the OL depth so that he could pull Heyer when he gets blown up repeatedly. All this on top of hiring for HC a guy who had never even proven to be able to call plays or had an offense or the ability to make one, gameplan, lead a team, etc. Just Blind, we believe.

The Redskins are a fantasy football team built the same way many of us at ES would build our Madden team on the xbox 360. They aren't an elite team focused on a common team goal. When Moss 1/2 asses it he still starts due to the alternative, when Heyer gets blown up because he lets every defender in the league get under his pads he still stays in the game, etc. Starting a QB that doesn't keep his receivers in the game also might be a part of the team chemistry thing we saw when Collins replaced him in 07 as well.

This team isn't like what Gibbs was doing either, he got rid of problems like Coles, Arrington, Mc Cants when he could. Gibbs in 2005 had built team chemistry in what everybody claimed was an out dated offense that could not win. Still we entered the playoffs as the most feared team according to some. The only negative was Brunell being injured and was never replaced by Ramsey, IMO. With a great defense that had averaged 3-4 sacks and 3-4 turnovers over the previous 5 games while not giving up many points Ramsey could have ran the score up on teams but instead Brunell set a record for playoff futility and then a tired team lost to Seattle.

Then they blew up the offense and what happened to the team chemistry? We went 5-11 with what looked like a totally different team with no chemistry.

This is all why I'm starting to go back to believing that with this Front Office setup nothing else really matters. They set the whole thing up to fail and then need an extra set of eyes to examine the predictable results.

You used the word three or four times and I still don't have a clear idea of what you mean by "chemistry." It's something that precedes execution; It's something that the front office can undermine; it's something receivers need to perform; and it's something that can be undermined by playcalling; but it doesn't have anything to do with scheme. It sounds important. I wish I knew what it was.

[TimmySmith]

I think you maybe onto something, though the only evidence I have seen of this was against NE in the pre-season (we took a bunch of shots down-the-field). In the regular season we never got Jason in a rhythm to get to those longer plays in the game plan.

2 things. One the WCO long plays are traditionally 30-40 yards fomr short drops. Exactly the pass that Collins completed. The longer plays, the ones you see from Favre, are generated by his mobility. Campbell is mobile, but only for the run. He simply does not use his legs to buy time, once he starts running, he keeps running. I just do not see where the WCO is designed to give the QB enough time for a 50-60 yard throw.

[Oldfan]

2 things. One the WCO long plays are traditionally 30-40 yards fomr short drops. Exactly the pass that Collins completed. The longer plays, the ones you see from Favre, are generated by his mobility. Campbell is mobile, but only for the run. He simply does not use his legs to buy time, once he starts running, he keeps running. I just do not see where the WCO is designed to give the QB enough time for a 50-60 yard throw.

The conventional WCO uses seven-step drops for the deeper throws just as all passing schemes do. The WCO just isn't designed to go deep as often as the Coryell scheme. Seven-step drops obviously require good pass protection.

[panel]

I don't know, but I definitely don't want the a new coach that runs the WCO.

That's not Redskins football. I like the smash-mouth, counter trey and then throw the deep ball game. That's Redskins football. None of this zone blocking crap.

Hit them in the mouth. Redskins football is violent.

:wavetowel:jump:

[SkinsFTW]

You used the word three or four times and I still don't have a clear idea of what you mean by "chemistry." It's something that precedes execution; It's something that the front office can undermine; it's something receivers need to perform; and it's something that can be undermined by playcalling; but it doesn't have anything to do with scheme. It sounds important. I wish I knew what it was.

If you haven't figured it out in 74 years I'm not really sure why your still asking me.

[SkinsFTW]

This might be a sign of what isn't team chemistry though Oldfan: http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=305050

[Oldskool]

I don't know, but I definitely don't want the a new coach that runs the WCO.

That's not Redskins football. I like the smash-mouth, counter trey and then throw the deep ball game. That's Redskins football. None of this zone blocking crap.

Hit them in the mouth. Redskins football is violent.

Again Smashmouth football in the modern NFL is ineffective and therefore a dead practice as an offense in this league.

Now, do you want to win or be nostalgic? As I've said before, sometimes I feel that fans would rather relive the glory days of the past than be successful in the present or the future.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Again Smashmouth football in the modern NFL is ineffective and therefore a dead practice as an offense in this league.

Now, do you want to win or be nostalgic? As I've said before, sometimes I feel that fans would rather relive the glory days of the past than be successful in the present or the future.

I agree...you don't see the Steelers, Packers, or Bears worrying about being a smashmouth team and they can claim that just as much as anyone else.

They still play aggressive and physical D, but your offense has to evolve with the times.

[Pedro]

Maybe we should be asking a more basic question, though. Maybe the days of the play action pass, with the QB dropping back from under center, is done.

Play action is effective for a team that can establish the run first. How many teams have O lines good enough to run block and pass protect consistently? And, if the deception of play action doesn't work, it only slows the QB down and makes him an easier target.

The Patriots acheive ball control with the pass and YAC, just as Walsh did, but they do it out of the gun. Denver is now doing the same. They go under center about half the time and usually run from it

This bit. Jason can do it, Todd can do it and more importantly it gives our QB time to see which guy is breaking through our OL this time.....

Still don't know why we don't play it. It's the one formation JC has consistently looked good, and we hardly ever see it. If it works, it works.