If you change OCs do you change style or philosophy

[Carolina Cajun]

I don't, and according to reports neither do most of the players.

 

 

I've agreed with this for years, but frankly, I don't give 2 shits what the players think at this point with how they've been playing.  I'd rather someone who can run a competent offense who's hated than everyone's buddy who calls a game like a high school coach from he 1920's.

[Mr. Scot]

Just a little john fox joke. Apologies if it was misplaced.

 

My response was in jest too.  Apparently not good jest

 

[Mr. Scot]

I've agreed with this for years, but frankly, I don't give 2 shits what the players think at this point with how they've been playing.  I'd rather someone who can run a competent offense who's hated than everyone's buddy who calls a game like a high school coach from he 1920's.

 

I get that, but Chud's not the answer.

 

[CRA]

Cam is a play action pass QB, who needs a strong running game to succeed. We're never going to air it out with Cam. He's not Luck, Brees, Payton, or any other QB who can throw a high number of passes in a pass first style offense. The running game, and defense need to be in place. He needs what Jake Delhomme had in place when he was doing well.

Cam has had an okay running game once in his career.....weak the 3 other seasons

[Carolina Cajun]

I get that, but Chud's not the answer.

 

 

I can agree with that, my only point is that my decision on the future OC will and should have zero bearing on the players opinions because they aren't performing.

[pantherj]

Cam has had an okay running game once in his career.....weak the 3 other seasons

 

What we really need is an Otah, but he was a HOF caliber run blocker, and they rarely show up in the draft. Still we have to upgrade the O-line in any way possible.

[Mr. Scot]

I can agree with that, my only point is that my decision on the future OC will and should have zero bearing on the players opinions because they aren't performing.

 

I actually hadn't pondered the fact that my favorite head coaching candidates are West Coast guys until today.

 

[Carolina Cajun]

I actually hadn't pondered the fact that my favorite head coaching candidates are West Coast guys until today.

 

 

Man, after seeing us run offenses where we have 40 yard slow developing routes with no underneath option, the thought of a WCO would be a dream come true.

[panthers55]

I respect your opinion.  I think Coryell at it's best, and no matter how you try to vary it, depends highly on spreading out the offense.  Sideline to sideline, 4-5 WR's running routes, and depends on the RB as a check-down/screen option in all cases, aside from actual running plays.  We very rarely do any of that.  EP can sometimes make people think Coryell, because it also makes use of the deep passing attack quite frequently, which we've seen a lot of this season.  The difference is, and I totally see this in our offense, is the RB is rarely used as a receiver, and almost never uses 4-5 receiver sets.  It's more "compact" and relies more on setting up the deep ball via play-action.  Hell, it's so fuged up right now, it may be neither, or just a stupid ass combination of both.

It isn't about spreading the field, any offense does that.  It is about how you spread the field.  you seem to be focusing on the plays and not the concepts.  Mike Martz used 4 or 5 receivers and a RB as a checkdown or screen and he was Coryell.  On the other hand Turner used a lot more 12 personnel with 2 tight ends which is also Coryell.  And we do all of that. Using the running back as receiver is not Coryell it is WCO.  And using play action to set up the pass is exactly what Coryell does

 

Coryell work on spreading things vertically where WCO and EP spread horizontally.  PLay action is used to freeze the linebackers and open up the seams for tight ends after the WRs take the corners down the field or to the edges.  Power runnning is used to make the defense put more guys in the box so you can throw over the top. So the things you say we do which are not Coryell are exactly what Coryell is supposed to do,

 

And yeah EP can look like many other offenses since anything not called WCO or Coryell was always lumped into the EP category.  This has changed a little with the spread.

 

From from what you are posting you seemed confused honestly.

[panthers55]

Man, after seeing us run offenses where we have 40 yard slow developing routes with no underneath option, the thought of a WCO would be a dream come true.

Cam would be bad in a WCO.  It requires you to throw the ball to a spot and before the receiver even makes his break.  One of the raps on Cam was that he throws to a receiver not a spot and his inaccuracy would cause multiple turnovers each week..

 

Plus what receivers do we have who are really after the catch running the ball?  If we went to this we would have to change our personnel all over again. Then again given how bad many are it might not be a bad idea.

[Carolina Cajun]

Cam would be bad in a WCO.  It requires you to throw the ball to a spot and before the receiver even makes his break.  One of the raps on Cam was that he throws to a receiver not a spot and his inaccuracy would cause multiple turnovers each week..

 

Plus what receivers do we have who are really after the catch running the ball?  If we went to this we would have to change our personnel all over again. Then again given how bad many are it might not be a bad idea.

 

You're right, that's one of cams problems, but what NFL QB in the NFL has that flaw and is truly successful.  You can't succeed in the NFL without being able to throw to a spot, and if he can't mature and grow like that, then he's just not an NFL QB.  He might step back for a bit, but his current game of running 12-15 times a game and staring down receivers and hucking it 100 mph into a needle hole won't continually work, he needs to learn to run a real NFL offense, not this abortion we're running right now.

[panthers55]

You're right, that's one of cams problems, but what NFL QB in the NFL has that flaw and is truly successful.  You can't succeed in the NFL without being able to throw to a spot, and if he can't mature and grow like that, then he's just not an NFL QB.  He might step back for a bit, but his current game of running 12-15 times a game and staring down receivers and hucking it 100 mph into a needle hole won't continually work, he needs to learn to run a real NFL offense, not this abortion we're running right now.

Part of why we run a Coryell system is that is isn't as much of a timing offense and accuracy isnt as important since passes are going vertically instead of across the field which is actually easier to throw.  Plus you have to have a big arm and he does those things well.  o if our o line were even as good as last year we wouldn't be having this conversation. 

[Nick_81]

It isn't about spreading the field, any offense does that.  It is about how you spread the field.  you seem to be focusing on the plays and not the concepts.  Mike Martz used 4 or 5 receivers and a RB as a checkdown or screen and he was Coryell.  On the other hand Turner used a lot more 12 personnel with 2 tight ends which is also Coryell.  And we do all of that. Using the running back as receiver is not Coryell it is WCO.  And using play action to set up the pass is exactly what Coryell does

 

Coryell work on spreading things vertically where WCO and EP spread horizontally.  PLay action is used to freeze the linebackers and open up the seams for tight ends after the WRs take the corners down the field or to the edges.  Power runnning is used to make the defense put more guys in the box so you can throw over the top. So the things you say we do which are not Coryell are exactly what Coryell is supposed to do,

 

And yeah EP can look like many other offenses since anything not called WCO or Coryell was always lumped into the EP category.  This has changed a little with the spread.

 

From from what you are posting you seemed confused honestly.

I don't think I'm confused.

 

"The Erhardt - Perkins system has at times had a reputation (whether or not earned) of being a traditional smash mouth offense that maximizes a team's time of possession and does not as frequently call upon its running backs to serve as receivers. Erhardt was famous for his adage, 'throw to score, run to win'....  This offense often uses 'the run to set up the pass' via play-action passing, faking the run in order to throw deep downfield(vertical) when the defense is least expecting it."  We do all of that.

 

"The Coryell offense is based on Sid Gillman's offense that required the defense to defend the entire field. The passing game was based on timing and rhythm, and coaching the system required a lot of repetition. Coryell expanded on those principles by putting receivers in motion. With the new defensive rules limiting contact to near the line of scrimmage, receivers in motion would be virtually impossible to jam. Coryell not only placed wide receivers in motion, he did so with tight ends and running backs as well. Putting the players in motion also had the advantage of allowing the quarterback to determine pre-snap if the defense would be playing zone or man-to-man defense. It was easier to read the coverage before the snap than afterwards due to the pass rush. It is also harder for a defender to cover if he has to change direction with the receiver instead of squaring up and getting set before a play. Defenses that react to the motion could get confused, leaving a defender in the wrong position.

 

The offense did not have any set formations, as receivers could line up anywhere on any given pass play. Passes were thrown to a spot before the receiver even got there, allowing defenders no hint where the pass was being targeted. Each receiver had two or three different route options they could adjust depending on the coverage during the play. Throwing a deep pass was the first option on each play. Coryell's offense had more progressions than Gillman's, with backup options for screen passes and underneath routes(back comes in here as well).

The Coryell offense uses three key weapons. The first is a strong inside running game, the second is its ability to strike deep with two or more receivers on any play, and the third is to not only use those two attacks in cooperation with each other, but to include a great deal of mid-range passing to a TE, WR, or back."

 

I understand that there are many variations, but what we do looks much more similar to EP than Coryell, in my mind.  

[panthers55]

I don't think I'm confused.

 

"The Erhardt - Perkins system has at times had a reputation (whether or not earned) of being a traditional smash mouth offense that maximizes a team's time of possession and does not as frequently call upon its running backs to serve as receivers. Erhardt was famous for his adage, 'throw to score, run to win'....  This offense often uses 'the run to set up the pass' via play-action passing, faking the run in order to throw deep downfield(vertical) when the defense is least expecting it."  We do all of that.

 

"The Coryell offense is based on Sid Gillman's offense that required the defense to defend the entire field. The passing game was based on timing and rhythm, and coaching the system required a lot of repetition. Coryell expanded on those principles by putting receivers in motion. With the new defensive rules limiting contact to near the line of scrimmage, receivers in motion would be virtually impossible to jam. Coryell not only placed wide receivers in motion, he did so with tight ends and running backs as well. Putting the players in motion also had the advantage of allowing the quarterback to determine pre-snap if the defense would be playing zone or man-to-man defense. It was easier to read the coverage before the snap than afterwards due to the pass rush. It is also harder for a defender to cover if he has to change direction with the receiver instead of squaring up and getting set before a play. Defenses that react to the motion could get confused, leaving a defender in the wrong position.

 

The offense did not have any set formations, as receivers could line up anywhere on any given pass play. Passes were thrown to a spot before the receiver even got there, allowing defenders no hint where the pass was being targeted. Each receiver had two or three different route options they could adjust depending on the coverage during the play. Throwing a deep pass was the first option on each play. Coryell's offense had more progressions than Gillman's, with backup options for screen passes and underneath routes(back comes in here as well).

The Coryell offense uses three key weapons. The first is a strong inside running game, the second is its ability to strike deep with two or more receivers on any play, and the third is to not only use those two attacks in cooperation with each other, but to include a great deal of mid-range passing to a TE, WR, or back."

 

I understand that there are many variations, but what we do looks much more similar to EP than Coryell, in my mind.  

I think that your wikepedia definitions may have been somewhat accurate 10 or 15 years ago when there really were very different systems but everything has become so homogeneous that most teams run similar plays with  the difference being the concepts and how the play is communicated.

 

Here is a good article talking about how they vary.

 

http://grantland.com/features/how-terminology-erhardt-perkins-system-helped-maintain-dominance-tom-brady-patriots/

 

Most teams run amalgums of more than one system for example New Orleans is knows as a WCO but borrows plays and concepts fro Coryell and EP.

 

So did we look like an EP at times, yeah.  Did we look coryell or even spread at times, yeah.  But the major concepts signal calling etc are from the Coryell system although I understand Shula simplified some of it  so again it is likely not a total coryell. 

 

Good football conversation.  A nice reprieve from the typical Shula sucks and fire Rivera threads.