Questions about the WCO, our strategy and your thoughts

[53Fan]

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.

[SouperMeister]

Originally Posted by cpayne5

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.

[Skinny Tee]

Originally Posted by cpayne5

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.

[EXoffender]

Originally Posted by Skinny Tee

...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.

[cpayne5]

Originally Posted by Skinny Tee

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.