Questions about the WCO, our strategy and your thoughts

The most important aspect of a WCO is the quick decision making of the QB in the passing game. It is an offense that often takes even good QBs 2-3 years to run effectively.

The theory of the WCO is to spread a defense horizontally, in an effort to expose mismatches. It typically utilizes a quick-rhythm short passing attack with many 3 step drops. It involves all eligible receivers, including the halfback and the fullback. I'm not sure that I agree with our fixation on huge WR's in the WCO. Mike Williams was a huge target but a total failure in Detroit. Joey Galloway is a small receiver who has had a long and successful career, mostly in the WCO. DeSean Jackson looked outstanding in his first game in Philly's WCO and he can't weigh more than 175 in full pads.

Often overlooked is the importance of O-line play. It is impossible to run a 3-step rhythm pass attack if the D-line is constantly harrasing the QB. For that reason, I really feel that O-line has to be a high priority going into the Skins next draft. We are starting 4 guys over the age of 30, and a 5th who was an undrafted FA rookie last year.

That wasn't going to happen. Saunders was goner no matter what. When they hired Zorn as the offensive coordinator first, the front office made a conscious decision to overhaul the offense.

Remember, Jason Campbell wasn't Cerrato's pick...

I don't see why they try to bring in a WCO guy in Zorn and talk about overhauling the offense but tell you that they are using Gibbs running game???

That sounds really dumb because Gibbs offense was run heavy and the WCO is pass heavy. You pick one or the other but you can't have both. The thought of that is paradox. Why would leave the running game from the last regime?

We should just focus on one cohesive style and go with it. From our scheme to our personnel, we are WAY too a la carte and it shows on the field.

Jerry Rice is 6-2 and played around 190lbs. John Taylor 6-1 185. They teamed to be one of the most explosive WCO offense ever.
Of modern players, Deion Branch (the Seahawks #1 wr currently) is 5-9 and Nate Burleson (#2) is listed at 6-0 but I think that's with cleats on.
Packers run a similar variation with Greg Jennings (5-11) and Donald Driver (6-0).
DeSean Jackson is 5-10 and he looked pretty awesome today for the Eagles.

Moss and ARE are 5-10. It's not a height issue for them it's a catch the ball even though you will get hit. That's why on 3rd and 8 they'll run a 7 yd cross expecting to catch in stride and run away. Where they are limited is inside the 10 yd line where the rules favor the wr (see Thursday's game when the cb was pushed down and flagged) and a tall strong wr should be unstoppable. But for the other 90 yards they should excel.

As for JC's accuracy, he's more than accurate enough. He just isn't confident enough to stick it in there. Can you imagine Favre, who most people say did pretty good in a similar WCO, not throwing picks? That's part of the WCO. High risk high reward. But you have to be confident and never doubt yourself or your skills (thus why Zorn's frustration with JC was his double clutching and hesitation rather than his incompletions or 7 yd passes on 3rd and 8).

Each coach and coordinator puts their own variations into the offense Walsh designed (based on Air Corryell which also gave us the H-back and Gibbs single back offenses). And coaches alter their system from year to year based on personel.I disagree that Walsh's WCO is a successor to Air Coryell. Don Coryell's passing game was a vertical attack that had more 5 and 7 step drops, with greater emphasis on passing the ball downfield. Desciples of Coryell's priciples have included Joe Gibbs, Ernie Zampese, Norv Turner, Mike Martz, and Al Saunders. Desciples of Walsh principles include Mike Holmgren, John Gruden, Andy Reid, Mike Shanahan, and Jim Zorn (among many others). I definitely see the Coryell and the Walsh passing strategies as distinctly different ways of attacking a defense.

Sure you can have both. When they run the ball, the plays are Gibbsian, and when they run pass plays, the calls are Zornian. Where's the paradox? The WCO offense describes the passing style of an offense, not the running style.

I don't see why they try to bring in a WCO guy in Zorn and talk about overhauling the offense but tell you that they are using Gibbs running game???

That sounds really dumb because Gibbs offense was run heavy and the WCO is pass heavy. You pick one or the other but you can't have both. The thought of that is paradox. Why would leave the running game from the last regime?

We should just focus on one cohesive style and go with it. From our scheme to our personnel, we are WAY too a la carte and it shows on the field.

You're confusing schemes and tendencies with plays and playbook. The running plays and terminology is the same as last year and they are run out of the same formations that Zorn integrated his passing plays and terminology into.
For example, an off tackle right out of a strong split I run is named the same thing this year as last. The name of the personnel group changed but not the line calls or the name of the play. Now, Zorn might never call that play (or any off tackle run) ever but that is the name of the play in the playbook.
There are plays that Bill Walsh designed thirty years ago run by the Eagles, Skins, Packers, Seahawks and Bucs. But each team names it different and sometimes the name of one play in Tampa is very similar to one run in Philly but they are completely different plays.
The focus of the offense is drastically different and the scheme is too. But the running plays kept the same verbage.

I think Zorn picked Colt because he's perfect for this offense. Peter King saw Jason practice this year and basically said he was the best he's ever seen. Why can't he transfer that to a real game? I don't think he's confident at all and at this point may be in over his head. I like Jason but I think it's time to man up and let the ball fly. Playing scared ain't gonna cut it.

Sure you can have both. When they run the ball, the plays are Gibbsian, and when they run pass plays, the calls are Zornian. Where's the paradox? The WCO offense describes the passing style of an offense, not the running style.In addition, with the WCO spreading a defense horizontally, it can benefit the run game by creating running lanes. My one complaint of the Gibbs style running attack is that it favors a larger back. If we're going to do the WCO whole hog, I'd like to see much more spread the defense out, Alex Gibbs-style zone blocking that sprung Portis for so many long runs in Denver. Our brute force approach to the run will no doubt shorten Portis's career.

Sure you can have both. When they run the ball, the plays are Gibbsian, and when they run pass plays, the calls are Zornian. Where's the paradox? The WCO offense describes the passing style of an offense, not the running style.


So when we run the ball we are going to have the O-line loaded with blockers and then when we pass it we're going to have a thin line and be spread out....that may be really transparent.


I understood the terminology reply and can see how it wouldn't affect field translation but formation-wise they are vastly different.

...We should just focus on one cohesive style and go with it. From our scheme to our personnel, we are WAY too a la carte and it shows on the field.Exactly. We needed a head coach with a knack for developing a QB but not at the expense of setting back the offense. Just look at the Colts. Dungy came in and left the offense alone.

So when we run the ball we are going to have the O-line loaded with blockers and then when we pass it we're going to have a thin line and be spread out....that may be really transparent.


I understood the terminology reply and can see how it wouldn't affect field translation but formation-wise they are vastly different.

The running game is much more about blocking assignments, blocking styles, etc than it is about formations that they line up in. A pulling guard is a pulling guard no matter how many TEs you have on the line. There were plenty of "wide(r) open"-formation running plays in "Gibbs" offense to be able to mesh well with any style of offensive passing philosophy.

Not every running play over the past 4 years was in "jumbo" or in two TE formations.