-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
libertadrocks
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 2,224
I agree with your premise. Schotty is bringing in his Coryell style offense but is tailoring it the the talent we have. We had more success with the WCO in 2010 so he is adding a lot of that stuff to the playbook. I also agree with you that our offense will not be as conservative as 2010. We have more talent now. I just hope the rookies can carry the burden being place on them
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2010
- Messages
- 12,111
- Name
- Rambeau
I certainly had no problem with the offense, my problem was with the play calling.zn said:
Too simple, but...
WCO = lateral
Coryell = vertical
Here something that some may find interesting, but it takes them a couple minutes to get to it.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJGnP1U_y9c[/youtube]
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #4
DR RAM said:
To be clear, I had no problem with the playcalling. In fact, I thought it was very smart. But then I didn't measure the offense simply by the length of the passes. The play design is what worked for me. The conservatism had nothing to do with the system. It was a response to having a line with 2 young tackles, a rookie qb, no receivers, and a hobbled Jackson.
And there are conservative Coryell offenses and vertical WCOs.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2010
- Messages
- 12,111
- Name
- Rambeau
I know you had no problem with it.zn said:
I specifically had a problem with the way we played when we had a lead.
I admired how Shurmer protected Sam with the limitations involved, but the conservatism, your word, is what I had a problem with in the second half of most games. And if it wasn't conservatism, then it was adjustments that were not made or countered. THAT was my problem, and it cost the Rams wins, IMO.
The lateral and vertical is the main theory difference between the two offenses. There is EVERY type of offense in the NFL.
I see you changed it to conservative. Yes, of course, there are thousands of variations and they constantly evolve. A Coryell offense can certainly be conservative if the OC, or HC are conservative, but the concepts, route trees, and verbage are likely the same.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #6
DR RAM said:
The conservatism, as I said, was completely situational. Young OTs, rookie qb, no WRs, hobbled Jackson. You should look up the catch rate for those WRs on anything over 10 yards...they were miserable. Clearly they counted on defense and designed an offense that could work with all those limitations. For it to have been anything else, they would have had to transform a limitation into something else (age the OTs, have different receivers, have a healthy Jackson, make Bradford not a rookie).
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #8
DR RAM said:
And see what those numbers reveal is that any pass over 11 yards, the catch to target rate was 14%.
That's excluding DX. DX made some difference, as did Clayton before him, but then DX only played 7 games and was productive in only 3 of them.
I think that offense was very smart. One sign, for me, of how it worked: every game, it seemed, one of those mediocre TEs they had was running scot free wide open. The play design was very smart. Lots of BASIC plays were part of the package, ones they ran over and over, where they relied on reps to execute them even though the defense saw them coming. But mixed in all of that were all these plays designed to get someone open in a heartbeat. He used picks very intelligently too.
So yeah we differ.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2010
- Messages
- 12,111
- Name
- Rambeau
Like usual, you are arguing a point that nobody is trying to make. I didn't have anything against the offense. I liked the offense. I told you EXACTLY what I didn't like.zn said:
I tried to contribute to your thread, but....
The lesson should have already been learned, but I won't make the mistake again.
-X-
Medium-sized Lebowski
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2010
- Messages
- 35,576
- Name
- The Dude
They called it that, probably, because it does have some WCO implementations. When offenses branch off from their original architects, different coordinators add things, and subtract things, to mold them to how THEY want to run an offense. It's too simple, IMO, to say an offense is "Coryell" or "Walsh". As it evolves and changes hands, it becomes something else. The basic principle may be one or the other, but seldom is an offense based on one principle entirely.
Here's Bradford on that.
[textarea]It also helps that this year's version of the offense, under the auspices of coordinator Brian Schottenheimer, bears a vague resemblance to Shurmur's version. "[hil]This offense does have some West Coast wrinkles[/hil]," Bradford said. "So I think at the [hil]base level[/hil] some of the things that this offense does are similar."
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football ... z1zVpCavhe[/textarea]
Here's Bradford on that.
[textarea]It also helps that this year's version of the offense, under the auspices of coordinator Brian Schottenheimer, bears a vague resemblance to Shurmur's version. "[hil]This offense does have some West Coast wrinkles[/hil]," Bradford said. "So I think at the [hil]base level[/hil] some of the things that this offense does are similar."
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football ... z1zVpCavhe[/textarea]
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #11
X said:
To me a system means 2 things.
1. it;s the language you use to call plays. Terminology. Coryell language differs markedly from WCO language.
2. it has some traditions that are not necessarily built into the plays themselves per se but have more to do with where a coach learned his craft. If he learned it in the Walsh tradition (Walsh, Reid, Shurmur) that has one set of effects. If he learned it from another tradition (Coryell, Zampese, Turner, Cameron) that has another set of effects. You can see some philosophical traditions here. WCO coaches tend to stress beating you by out executing you. Coryell coaches tend to stress setting up mismatches through play design, and throwing to the spot--which means the receiver runs highly precise routes and can cut without losing speed.
The Rams don't run a WCO. And there's no such thing anymore as a "WCO play." They took some plays from 2010 and added them to Brian's playbook. The players just have a way of talking about that that confuses the issue.
It's still a Coryell system.
BUT then different coordinators can use a system differently. If someone was used to seeing the classic 80s WCO, they might not even realize just from watching games that right now, both Green Bay and Philadelphia run WCOs. That's "playcalling philosophy." Their preferred plays and mode of attack may not look the same (playcalling philosophy) but they're still WCOs (system).
-X-
Medium-sized Lebowski
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2010
- Messages
- 35,576
- Name
- The Dude
That's all well and good, but you asked why a couple of players called it a WCO.
I explained that. It's because it has some of that in there, and at its base, it's similar to a WCO.
Schottenheimer himself went away from the vertical aspect of a Coryell offense in order to tailor it to what Sanchez can and cannot do. So, in that aspect, it's not a [this or that] system. It's Schottenheimer's system.
I explained that. It's because it has some of that in there, and at its base, it's similar to a WCO.
Schottenheimer himself went away from the vertical aspect of a Coryell offense in order to tailor it to what Sanchez can and cannot do. So, in that aspect, it's not a [this or that] system. It's Schottenheimer's system.
Can you give me 5 specific examples of this?
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #13
X said:
But I answered my own question. Quite simply, they mis-spoke. I said: "I know some players say it's like a WCO but that's just loose talk....Now why did the players erroneously say it is a WCO? Because Fisher and Brian the S came in this year and watched film of 2010. They then copied a lot of stuff from that year and built it into the playbook. So players recognize a lot of concepts from 2010. "
Shottenheimer took some plays from 2010, and the players just then called those plays "WCO" plays. It was just shorthand and not a very insightful comment by them.
In terms of terminology, this is just old old knowledge about how Coryell systems tend to call plays v. the WCO. I would have no idea what the exact play calls were. So how does the Walsh tradition name and call a play v. Coryell calling the same play? The former tends to rely on compound names strung together and the latter relies heavily on the digital system, though that's not exclusive any more. I mean this is just info that goes way back.
How do you know or where did you hear Shottenheimer has copied plays from 2010 years playbook, and put them into this years pb zn?
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #15
Username said:
Fisher said they looked back on 2010 to see what worked with Bradford and then the players showed up and said they recognized a lot of things from 2010. Meanwhile a former Jet, Mulligan, said that Brian's playbook is different from what it was last year--that he couldn't just simply assume he knew the 2012 offense when he showed up, even though he played for Brian S in 2011.
-X-
Medium-sized Lebowski
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2010
- Messages
- 35,576
- Name
- The Dude
Hmmm. Let me see if I understand you correctly.zn said:
Some of the players, including Bradford, said the offense has some WCO in it and that at its base it's similar to a WCO offense, and they're not being very insightful? Congratulations - we're about to have a disagreement about something. I know it's been a while, so strap on your feedbag.
I know about the Coryell offense too, by the way. It's the offspring of our very own Sid Gillman, and something that Joe Gibbs had success tailoring to his preferred offensive playcalling, making it a run-oriented VERSION of the original system. I also know the inherent differences between the WCO and the Air Coryell systems. Which, as it turns out, isn't much. Both have seen coordinators use the run to set up vertical passing lanes. Several coordinators went on from the roots of the WCO (incorrectly labeled from the beginning anyway) and changed it to suit the personnel they use, but never straying far away from the basic principles of the original system. Under Shanahan, John Elway ran a version of the WCO too, and he's the poster-child for vertical offenses.
Shanahan, Kubiak, Holmgren, Gruden ... they all took the Walsh system and expanded on it. How many people call the Broncos under Elway or the Packers under Favre "west coast offenses"? Not many, but that's the system they ran. Similarly, Schottenheimer intends to use a run-first principle to set up the horizontal pass, and that - in basic principle - is a west coast offense. I don't pay a lot of attention to the horizontal vs vertical applications of the systems, because those are just one variation and not the sole definition.
In THAT way, some of the players (including the QB) say it has WCO "wrinkles". It's not entirely Coryell, and it's not entirely Walsh. It would sound stupid if some of the players said it's a Coryell-Walsh system, so they just say it has some WCO in it as a Coryell system. I don't think I've seen a player yet say it's one or the other. All I see is players saying it has some similarities to Shurmur's version of the WCO. Which, as it turns out, is true.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #17
X said:
Yep. They see the plays that were taken from 2010 but then assume that means you can call the system WCO or WCO based. I think what they're really doing is that old thing where certain kinds of passes are seen as "WCO" and so they went with that. Just talk.
Meanwhile we know it's a Coryell system and we know that it does not have WCO roots. We know that. That's Shottenheimer's history.
A more insightful way to put it would have been "I recognize some plays from 2010."
What they were not insightful about was how to put it. It's phrasing. That phrasing is not helpful though because then some people read it and go "hey Brian S runs a WCO." No, he doesn't.
And why would we expect Bradford to be an historian of offenses. The 2012 Rams playbook contains plays modeled after what Shurmur did in 2010. Bradford sees that and just calls it the wrong thing--he takes that to mean something it doesn't. Like I said, he mis-spoke. In a completely unsurprising and no big deal way.
And actually I wasn't even right about where Shottenheimer learned the Coryell system. Brian S did not learn the Coryell offense from Cameron--he learned BEFORE Cameron. He learned it as an intern with the Rams in 97. He also knew it from Jimmy Raye, who was the coordinator in Washington in 2001. So he knew it before Cameron in SD in 2002.
-X-
Medium-sized Lebowski
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2010
- Messages
- 35,576
- Name
- The Dude
Nah, I don't buy that. But before we go any further, can you show me a quote of these players who called it a west coast offense, and said it's only that? Or better yet, a quote or two from them that you're disputing?zn said:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #20
X said:
It is, however, true.
BTW let me include my full post here cause I did the "add by edit" thing.
Yep. They see the plays that were taken from 2010 but then assume that means you can call the system WCO or WCO based. I think what they're really doing is that old thing where certain kinds of passes are seen as "WCO" and so they went with that. Just talk.
Meanwhile we know it's a Coryell system and we know that it does not have WCO roots. We know that. That's Shottenheimer's history.
A more insightful and useful way for Bradford to put it would have been to say "I recognize some plays from 2010."
What they were not insightful about was how to put it. It's phrasing. That phrasing is not helpful though because then some people read it and go "hey Brian S runs a WCO." But, he doesn't.
And why would we expect Bradford to be an historian of offenses. The 2012 Rams playbook contains plays modeled after what Shurmur did in 2010. Bradford sees that and just calls it the wrong thing--he takes that to mean something it doesn't. Like I said, he mis-spoke. In a completely unsurprising and no big deal way.
And actually I wasn't even right about where Shottenheimer learned the Coryell system. Brian S did not learn the Coryell offense from Cameron--he learned BEFORE Cameron. He learned it as an intern with the Rams in 97. He also knew it from Jimmy Raye, who was the coordinator in Washington in 2001. So he knew it before Cameron in SD in 2002.
I just looked this up, too: