Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
Gruden's scheme is antiquated. He was a decent enough WCO guy twenty years ago, but that scheme is dead and buried. Gruden could make a bad qb average with a conservative scheme 15 years ago. That scheme doesn't make good QBs great, and he's not a creative enough mind to step outside the scheme.
It also helped he had 2 HOF WRs and a Pro Bowl QB but I agree fuck the WCO. [Reply]
Gruden like Shanny were great coaches in their day but the league has changed. Hell not even a guy like Marty would be successful in today's NFL. [Reply]
The WCO is still a good Offense, if you have some imaginative play design and some great athletes that can turn smaller plays into some huge ones.
Andy is among the best when it comes to play design and having a player like Tyreek Hill goes a long way. It's a little bit different when your design is a bit stale and you've got an old Jordy Nelson and a lazy Amari Cooper as your guys. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BryanBusby:
The WCO is still a good Offense, if you have some imaginative play design and some great athletes that can turn smaller plays into some huge ones.
Andy is among the best when it comes to play design and having a player like Tyreek Hill goes a long way. It's a little bit different when your design is a bit stale and you've got an old Jordy Nelson and a lazy Amari Cooper as your guys.
Who runs a traditional wco that works? All of Reids guys sans McDemorrt run some variations. Weve seen how well the traditional has worked in Buffalo and Oakland this far.
As far as college I couldnt tell you who runs a traditional WCO that works. Callahan and Riley ran it at Nebraska it failed miserably and they were bringing in top 25 classes. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BryanBusby:
The WCO is still a good Offense, if you have some imaginative play design and some great athletes that can turn smaller plays into some huge ones.
Andy is among the best when it comes to play design and having a player like Tyreek Hill goes a long way. It's a little bit different when your design is a bit stale and you've got an old Jordy Nelson and a lazy Amari Cooper as your guys.
Everything is so mushed now.
15 years ago you could say the 3 main offenses were the Coryell offense (the real WCO. Gilman, Al Davis ect) the Walsh offense (known as the WCO thanks to fake news) and the Erhardt-Perkins offense (popularly used by Brady and Manning).
Now it's all mushed together. Everyone runs concepts from other offenses, plucks concepts from college, ect. Not many people running any purist forms of any of them. Well, not anyone having success. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BryanBusby:
The WCO is still a good Offense, if you have some imaginative play design and some great athletes that can turn smaller plays into some huge ones.
Andy is among the best when it comes to play design and having a player like Tyreek Hill goes a long way. It's a little bit different when your design is a bit stale and you've got an old Jordy Nelson and a lazy Amari Cooper as your guys.
At this point the biggest difference between, say, a WCO and a Coryell offense is how the play terminology works.
Everyone uses concepts from other offenses. Aspects of the WCO are STAPLES of every offense in the NFL, but the playcall probably has a different name. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BryanBusby:
The WCO is still a good Offense, if you have some imaginative play design and some great athletes that can turn smaller plays into some huge ones.
Andy is among the best when it comes to play design and having a player like Tyreek Hill goes a long way. It's a little bit different when your design is a bit stale and you've got an old Jordy Nelson and a lazy Amari Cooper as your guys.
No kidding. Old and slow RBs, WRs that suck or are lazy and taken out of games and a QB who sees ghosts in the pocket [Reply]
